CAT/C/60/D/681/2015 power, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 23 8.5 The Committee notes that the complainant’s claim that he was detained and tortured by the Taliban on account of his ethnicity and religion for about five months in 2008, since it accused him of working for a foreign Government and suspected him of being implicated in the preparation of a suicide bombing. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that he witnessed the decapitation of his father and another detainee, which resulted in a significant trauma; that the Afghan authorities would be unwilling or unable to protect him from persecution and torture if he returned to Afghanistan since its authorities are infiltrated at all levels by the Taliban (see para. 2.8 above); and that, after his arrival in Australia, he was diagnosed with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, admittedly further exacerbated by the length of his immigration detention in the State party. The Committee further notes that no adequate treatment would be available in Afghanistan to attend his needs, and that the author’s psychological health has deteriorated since 2012, mainly due to having seen his father killed and to the prolonged stay in immigration detention in the wake of conceded errors in the first independent merits review assessment (see para. 4.11 above). The Committee further notes the complainant’s submission that the decision makers of the State party failed to consider whether his mental health condition could be treated in Afghanistan and whether the lack of adequate treatment would amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in his case. These allegations, which have presented new circumstances in support of the post-review complementary protection claims, have not been contested by the State party. 8.6 The Committee further notes the State party’s claim that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would face a real and personal risk of torture if he returned to Afghanistan and that a general risk of violence does not constitute a sufficient ground to determine that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned. Nonetheless, the Committee notes that the State party did not contest the complainant’s claims regarding the risk of torture or ill-treatment for him as a returned failed asylum seeker and the failure of the Government of Afghanistan to provide protection from torture. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the State party’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection concluded that the complainant could reasonably relocate to another area within Afghanistan, including Kabul, while it accepted that the author and his father were kidnapped and tortured by the Taliban over several months, and that the author witnessed his father’s beheading, for which reason he has feared returning to Afghanistan (see para. 4.6 above). The Committee also notes that the State party has pointed to contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements; however, the Committee considers that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture,24 whose mental health conditions should be properly taken into account. In addition, while finding that the complainant would not be denied medical care in Afghanistan, the State party accepted that there is a “comparably inferior state” of mental health care in Afghanistan. 8.7 The Committee is aware of the human rights situation in Afghanistan and notes that the Australian authorities took this issue into consideration when assessing the risk that the complainant might face if returned to his country of origin. As regards the complainant’s allegations as to the risk he would face as a failed asylum seeker who has lived for several years in a western country, the Committee notes the absence of any arguments refuting this claim by the State party. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that he was subjected to torture by non-State actors and that the State party would not be in a condition to protect him if he returned to Afghanistan. In that connection, the Committee recalls that 23 24 See general comment No. 1, para. 9, and communications No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3; No. 375/2009, T.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.7; No. 387/2009, Dewage v. Australia, decision adopted on 14 November 2013, para. 10.4; and No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 May 2014, para. 8.3. See communication No. 21/1995, Alan v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 11.3. 9