CAT/C/66/D/829/2017 upon his return. The Committee notes the State party’s finding that acts of torture or illtreatment can be described as an occasional occurrence in Benin. It also notes the State party’s conclusion that there is nothing to indicate the existence of substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a specific and personal risk of being tortured on his return to Benin, in view of the new political context in the country and in particular the complainant’s family ties to Patrice Talon, who was pardoned in 2014 and has been the President of the country since 6 April 2016. The Committee observes that the political context in Benin has changed since the alleged facts and that the complainant does not profess to have taken part in political activities. 7.7 The Committee notes that the State party contests the complainant’s allegations of sexual violence, finding them to be implausible and to have been reported late. In this regard, the Committee notes that the complainant’s sequelae were not contested by the national authorities but that the Federal Administrative Court held that the medical certificates dated 15 July and 28 September 2015 did not establish the origin of those sequelae and therefore did not confirm the allegations of torture, and found that the certificates did not contain any fresh evidence that might influence its assessment of the credibility of the complainant’s account as far as the risk of persecution was concerned. 7.8 The Committee also notes the complainant’s arguments that: (a) he would not be able to receive appropriate psychiatric treatment in his country of origin; (b) the therapeutic rapport he has established with his current psychiatrist could make it harder to develop another relationship with one in Benin; and (c) the comments he makes in a medical context in Benin might be used by the police. The Committee observes, however, that the complainant’s state of health has been thoroughly examined by the Swiss authorities, that he is no longer hospitalized and that treatment can be provided in Benin, as there are several specialist centres in Cotonou where the complainant could receive appropriate care. 7.9. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the information submitted by the complainant is insufficient to substantiate his claim that he would be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if he were returned to Benin. 8. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the return of the complainant to Benin would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 8 GE.19-12653