CAT/C/61/D/690/2015 that the current human rights situation in Lebanon, including as regards human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, does not in itself suffice to establish that the forced removal of the complainant would breach State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, there is a need for the complainant to show that he would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.5 As to the personal risk upon return, the complainant raised before the Committee the same claims that have been considered by the domestic authorities, namely, that he risks being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by Lebanese authorities, as well as by his family, owing to his sexual orientation, if returned to his country of origin. The State party points out that several provisions of the Aliens Act reflect the same principles as article 3 of the Convention. The State party also notes that the Migration Agency and the Migration Court conducted a thorough examination of the case, having sufficient information to ensure a well-informed, transparent and reasonable assessment of the complainant’s protection needs. In that regard, the State party refers to paragraph 9 of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, in which the Committee stated that it was for the courts of the States parties to the Convention and not for the Committee to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it could be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The State party submits that there is no reason to consider that in the present case the decisions of the domestic authorities were inadequate, arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 4.6 The State party notes that the complainant’s new claim for asylum was considered despite being submitted at a late stage, when he had a duty of either leaving Sweden or reapplying for asylum. Regarding the alleged threat from his father and relatives, apart from his own assumption that his relatives might have become aware of his sexual orientation, the complainant had not submitted any evidence of a concrete and individual threat towards him other than the general situation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. His father had lived in Israel for many years, yet the complainant made no mention any previous instances of violence from him. The complainant has personally not lived in Lebanon since he was a minor and has never suffered any past mistreatment in his country of origin. Now he is an independent and educated adult and there is no evidence in the case to substantiate that any of his relatives would pose a real threat to him that would amount to treatment under article 3 of the Convention. 4.7 As for the threat from the authorities, the State party notes that, although lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are a vulnerable group in Lebanon, article 534 of the Criminal Code is rarely applied and is not in itself sufficient to constitute a real and personal risk for the complainant being subjected to the treatment in breach of article 3 of the Convention, especially since there is no evidence that the authorities are actively persecuting homosexuals. The State party concludes that the complainant’s claims are not based on grounds that go beyond a mere theory or suspicion and that his return to Lebanon would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his comments to the State party’s observations dated 29 August 2016, the complainant claims that, according to many reliable sources, article 534 of the Criminal Code is still applied in practice to arrest and torture homosexuals and that he therefore faces an individual threat. He claims that the State party has not presented any real and substantial evidence supporting the position that article 534 of the Criminal Code would not be applied in practice today. Even if the prison term is substituted with a fine, it constitutes a criminal record, which is often requested to have access to jobs, services, etc., and which thus increases risk of social discrimination. Despite the efforts in the country to make lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons more accepted, being a homosexual in Lebanon is still a risk. The complainant concludes that, because the law criminalizing homosexual relations is applied in Lebanon, he will be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture if returned there. He will not be able to live openly with 3