CAT/C/66/D/829/2017 5.8 With regard to medical care in Benin, the complainant refers to reports 6 on the problematic health-care situation in the country and points to the shortcomings of the mental health system in particular. Moreover, the therapeutic rapport that the complainant has built with his psychiatrist will make it harder to develop another relationship with one in Benin. The complainant also fears that the comments he makes in a medical context might be used by the police. This fear even extends to his family relationships, as he has not yet dared to speak clearly to his wife about what he has been through. 5.9 As for his family ties with Patrice Talon, the fact that the complainant is married to the niece of the current President does not necessarily mean that they were close at the time of the events, before he was elected. The complainant’s departure could be interpreted as a lack of loyalty to his country and therefore to his wife’s uncle, putting him at risk of further abuses. 5.10 The complainant hoped to find protection in the State party and thus be relieved of the anxieties and nightmares that led to his hospitalization in 2017. He is now receiving therapy, which appears to be the only way for him to overcome these problems, although his suffering persists. There have been multiple physical consequences of the two weeks of imprisonment and torture that he endured. For example, he was forced to lift weights several times a day while being struck with rifle butts and cut with sharp blades, which has left him with severe knee and back pain that significantly impairs his mobility and requires him to undergo intensive physiotherapy sessions. 5.11 In conclusion, all these elements lead the complainant to maintain that his deportation to Benin would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that, in this case, the State party does not contest the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies by the complainant or the admissibility of the complaint. 6.3 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible under article 3 of the Convention and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Benin would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee recalls that the 6 6 See World Health Organization, Mental Health Atlas 2011, Country Profile: Benin. Available at www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/atlas/profiles/ben_mh_profile.pdf?ua=1. See also Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Benin: Treatment of people with mental illness, including schizophrenics, by society and the authorities (2009-May 2013), 10 June 2013, BEN104449.F. Available at: https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/country-information/rir/Pages/index.aspx?doc=454613&pls=1. GE.19-12653