CAT/C/46/D/338/2008 persecution on the part of the Bangladeshi authorities, let alone torture within the meaning of article 1. It refers to human rights reports and concludes that any persecution of Hindu people on religious grounds that may occur does not emanate from the state. Nor does such persecution takes place with the consent or acquiescence of the State. Furthermore, regarding the complainant’s reference to an occasion when the members of his family were attacked due to their Hindu belief and their place for prayer was destroyed, it notes that the complainant himself was not at home at that time and there is nothing to indicate that he himself was the target of religious persecution. 4.14 As to the allegations of violation of article 16, the State party submits that the complainant does not provide any reason why there would be such a violation. It refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence2 and contends that aggravation of the complainant’s health due to deportation would not amount to the type of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by article 16 of the Convention. 4.15 The State party refers to the medical opinion by one Dr. Ziad Yanes, a specialist in psychiatry which was submitted by the complainant and which the State party contends is a reproduction of his story. The complainant has also invoked two medical certificates by Dr. Asa Magnusson. The State party submits that at the initial interview the complainant stated that he was worried but not suffering from any mental illness, however from the medical documentation it is evident that his health has deteriorated during his time in Sweden. Dr. Magnusson’s certificate states that his health has improved due to the treatment he has been given. The State party submits that should he need medical care in his native country because of his mental health problems, it appears that such care is available at least in the big cities. Therefore, the possible aggravation of his health that his deportation might cause would not amount to the type of treatment covered by article 16. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 4 September 2009, the complainant submitted executive summaries of the medical investigation into his torture injuries, which state that he was tortured twice in 2004 by the Bangladeshi police. He describes the methods of torture which include, being hit with fisteriron, iron rods, riffle butts and police batons. He also claims being cut by bayonets, burnt with cigarettes, whipped under the feet, hung upside down, water treatment, rape and others. As a result, he developed chronic pain in his joints, pain in his feet while walking and itch in his skin. He also provides the summaries of the conclusion by one Dr. Edston, who found scar tissue in his head, both arms, his torso and both legs. 5.2 The complainant submits a summary of examination by one Dr Soegndergaard, which states that he was committed to hospital care due to suicide attempts and confirms that he has clear symptoms of PTSD. 5.3 As to the State party’s argument that his complaint does not rise to the basic level of substantiation, the complainant submits that he has shown grounds that he would be personally at risk if returned to Bangladesh. He claims that the evidence submitted, including the medical certificates, show that he has been subjected to torture by Bangladeshi authorities and claims that there continues to exist a substantial, personal and foreseeable risk of torture, if he is returned to Bangladesh. 5.4 The complainant contends that the State party did not in any way specify its argument that his claims are manifestly unfounded. The documents submitted as well as his statement provide detailed and specific information. Being highly traumatized, he cannot be 2 8 G.R.B. v Sweden 83/1997. Views adopted on 15 May 1998.