CAT/C/60/D/681/2015 it has, in its jurisprudence 25 and in its general comment No. 2 (2008) on the implementation of article 2, addressed the risk of torture by non-State actors and the failure on the part of a State party to exercise due diligence to intervene and stop the abuses that are impermissible under the Convention, for which it may bear responsibility. 26 In that regard, the Committee notes the information contained in the available reports on torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and the violation of fair trial rights in Afghanistan, 27 as well as reports concerning the mistreatment of failed asylum seekers who have profiles similar to the author.28 8.8 The Committee further notes that the complainant’s arguments, and the evidence he submitted to support them, have been considered by the State party’s authorities. The Committee recalls that, although it is for the complainant to establish a prima facie case for an asylum request, it does not exempt the State party from making substantial efforts to determine whether there are grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned. 29 The Committee considers as undisputed the fact that the complainant has been detained and tortured by the Taliban, that he is in a fragile medical condition, as he has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder linked to the trauma he suffered in Afghanistan, admittedly further exacerbated by the length of his immigration detention in the State party, and that the risk of torture or of significant harm could not be excluded as the State party had recommended that he relocate to another area within Afghanistan (see para. 4.6). 8.9 Accordingly, the Committee considers that, while the State party has raised concerns regarding, for example, the credibility of the complainant’s arguments as to his fear of the risk of torture, or as to the threats he has suffered, it has drawn an adverse conclusion as to the complainant’s credibility without adequately exploring a fundamental aspect of the complainant’s claim, namely whether his past experience of torture, exacerbated by his present mental health condition, resulting from the torture and inhuman treatment he suffered in Afghanistan, might not represent a current risk profile owing to exposure to serious or significant harm if returned to Afghanistan. The Committee therefore considers that, by rejecting the complainant’s asylum application without giving sufficient weight to the fact that the Afghan authorities are not in a condition to protect the complainant from further persecution by the Taliban, the State party failed to investigate sufficiently whether the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to Afghanistan. In that regard, the Committee considers, referring to its jurisprudence, 30 that the internal flight or relocation alternative does not represent a reliable and durable alternative, where the lack of protection is generalized and the individual concerned would be exposed to a further risk of persecution or serious harm, in particular when the persecution of the civilian population by anti-government elements is often random in the complainant’s country of origin. The Committee further considers that the State party’s authorities did not adequately assess the mental health condition of the complainant, the actual availability of adequate treatment in Afghanistan and the potential consequences for the complainant’s mental health of his forced removal to his country of origin. The Committee therefore considers that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the removal of the complainant to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 25 26 27 28 29 30 10 See, inter alia, communications No. 379/2009, Bakatu-Bia v. Sweden, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 10.6; No. 322/2007, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.5. See general comment No. 2, para. 18. See also Dewage v. Australia, para. 10.9. See CAT/C/AFG/2 and A/HRC/31/46, page 10. See also CAT/C/AFG/CO/2. See, for example, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum seekers from Afghanistan (19 April 2016), pp. 31-32. See also www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/14/hazara-asylum-seeker-to-be-forcibly-deportedfrom-australia-to-afghanistan. See, inter alia, communication No. 580/2014, F.K. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, para. 7.6. See, for example, communication No. 338/2008, Uttam Mondal v. Sweden, decision adopted on 23 May 2011, para. 7.4.