CAT/C/64/D/742/2016 necessary for his rehabilitation. According to the medical report of 14 December 2016, the interruption of the specialized treatment and of the stable social environment provided by his brother would put the complainant at risk of irreparable harm, as his depressive state would worsen to such an extent that he would be likely to commit suicide. The Committee further notes that this precarious situation endangering the life of the complainant would leave him no reasonable choice but to seek protection elsewhere, exposing him to a risk of chain refoulement to his home country. 8.8 Against this background, the Committee considers that the State party should have ascertained whether appropriate rehabilitation services in Italy were actually available and accessible to the complainant in order to satisfy his right to rehabilitation as a victim of torture, and to seek assurances from the Italian authorities to ensure that the complainant would have immediate and continuing access to such treatments until such time as he no longer needed them. In the absence of any information from the State party suggesting that such an assessment took place in the present case, and in view of the complainant’s health situation, the Committee considers that the State party failed to sufficiently and individually assess the complainant’s personal experience as a victim of torture and the foreseeable consequences of forcibly returning him to Italy. The Committee therefore considers that, by deporting the complainant to Italy, the State party would deprive him of his right to rehabilitation, and that this situation would by itself amount, in the circumstances of the complainant, to ill-treatment. Accordingly, forcibly returning the complainant to Italy would constitute a breach of articles 14 and 16 of the Convention. 8.9 The Committee recalls that, according to its general comment No. 2, the obligation to prevent ill-treatment overlaps with and is largely congruent with the obligation to prevent torture and that, in practice, the definitional threshold between ill-treatment and torture is often not clear. Experience demonstrates that the conditions that give rise to ill-treatment frequently facilitate torture and therefore the measures required to prevent torture must be applied to prevent ill-treatment (para. 3). It also recalls that, according to the same general comment, the protection of certain minority or marginalized individuals or populations, such as asylum seekers, who are especially at risk of torture is a part of the obligation to prevent torture or ill-treatment (para. 21). 8.10 The Committee also recalls that States parties should consider whether other forms of ill-treatment that a person facing deportation is at risk of experiencing might change so as to constitute torture before making a non-refoulement assessment. In this regard, severe pain or suffering cannot always be objectively assessed and it depends on the negative physical and/or mental repercussions that the infliction of violent or abusive acts has on each individual, taking into account the relevant circumstances of each case, including the nature of the treatment, the sex, age and state of health and vulnerability of the victim or any other status or factors (paras. 16–17). The Committee notes that, in the complainant’s case, the ill-treatment that he would be exposed to in Italy, together with the absence of a stable social environment provided by his brother, would entail a risk of his depressive state worsening to the extent that he would be likely to commit suicide and that, in the circumstances of this case, this ill-treatment could reach a level comparable to torture. The Committee is therefore of the view that the deportation of the complainant to Italy would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s deportation to Italy would constitute a breach of articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention. 10. The Committee is of the view that, in accordance with articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention, the State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the complainant to Italy and to continue complying with its obligation to provide the complainant, in full consultation with him, with rehabilitation through medical treatment. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations. 12