74. Also at its thirty-seventh session, the Committee adopted Views on complaints Nos. 227/2003 (A.A.C. v. Sweden), 251/2004 (A.A. v. Switzerland), 259/2004 (M.N. v. Switzerland), 262/2005 (V.L. v. Switzerland), 265/2005 (A.H. v. Sweden), 277/2005 (N.Z.S. v. Sweden), 279/2005 (C.T. and K.M. v. Sweden), 280/2005 (Rgeig v. Switzerland), 282/2005 (S.P.A. v. Canada), 286/2006 (M.R.A. v. Sweden). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VII, section A, to the present report. 75. In its decision on complaint No. 227/2003 (A.A.C. v. Sweden), the Committee found that the complainant’s expulsion to Bangladesh, where he had allegedly been tortured as a member of an illegal political party, did not amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention, given that seven years had lapsed since the alleged torture had taken place, that the status of charges against the complainant under the Public Safety Act remained unclear, and that the complainant’s own political party was now part of the Government of Bangladesh. Furthermore, the Committee considered that the complainant had not sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, that his prompt removal from Sweden, despite mental health problems, violated article 16 of the Convention. In this respect, it considered that the aggravation of an individual’s physical or mental health through deportation is generally insufficient to amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of this provision. It also found inadmissible, for lack of substantiation, the complainant’s further claim that the restrictive practice used by the Swedish authorities in the granting of a residence permit itself violated articles 3 and 16 of the Convention. 76. Complaints Nos. 251/2004 (A.A. v. Switzerland), 259/2004 (M.N. v. Switzerland), 265/2005 (A.H. v. Sweden), 277/2005 (N.Z.S. v. Sweden), and 286/2006 (M.R.A. v. Sweden) concerned asylum-seekers who claimed that their expulsion, return or extradition to their countries of origin would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as they would be at risk of being subjected to torture there. The Committee, after examining the claims and evidence submitted by the complainants as well as the arguments from the two States parties concerned, concluded that such risk had not been established. Accordingly, no breach of article 3 was found in these cases. 77. In its decision on complaint No. 262/2005 (V.L. v. Switzerland), the Committee considered that the complainant had established that her expulsion to Belarus would expose her to the risk of being subjected to torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. It reached this conclusion in the light of medical evidence corroborating the complainant’s allegation that she had been subjected to sexual abuse, including multiple rape, by the police in the recent past, in retaliation for her and her husband’s political activities. This abuse was also aimed at intimidating, punishing and humiliating her, and the Belarusian authorities appeared to have failed to investigate, prosecute and punish the police for such acts. In this context, the Committee stressed that the sexual abuse by the police amounted to torture, even though it had been perpetrated outside formal detention facilities. The Committee noted that the Belarusian authorities’ failure to act increased the risk of ill-treatment after the complainant’s return to Belarus, since the perpetrators of the rape had not been investigated, let alone prosecuted, and could mistreat the complainant again with impunity. There was, therefore, substantial doubt, based on the particular facts of the case, as to whether the authorities of Belarus would take the necessary measures to protect the complainant from further harm. 78. Complaint No. 279/2005 (C.T. and K.M. v. Sweden) concerned a Rwandan citizen of Hutu origin claiming that her expulsion to Rwanda would expose her and her son to the risk of torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted her description of the treatment 98