CAT/C/64/D/742/2016 and often non-existent” and that “there is a lack of culturally appropriate human and financial resources and mental health services to treat asylum seekers”.23 5.6 The complainant adds that the wave of migration in Italy in 2016 collapsed the reception system and that migrants have to wait for weeks or months before being able to file an asylum claim and to get access to the reception system. 24 In the light of this, informal accommodation structures have been put in place, but they are not adapted to receive persons in vulnerable situations. Poor living conditions in these centres worsen the mental health of asylum seekers with psychiatric conditions. The complainant therefore argues that the living conditions in Italy for asylum seekers who, like him, are in a vulnerable situation and suffer post-traumatic stress disorder are unbearable. 5.7 The notion of “situation of vulnerability” should not be limited to families with children but should include persons belonging to a particularly vulnerable group, like victims of torture, such as the complainant. 25 In this connection, the complainant takes note of the State party’s claim that Tarakhel v. Switzerland is irrelevant because it refers to the case of a family with small children. However, he notes that the Court recognized in that case that asylum seekers belonged to a particularly vulnerable group, needing special protection and that shelter could be inaccessible to some asylum seekers in Italy. 5.8 The complainant argues that, in A.S. v. Switzerland referred to by the State party, the Court failed to take into account the specific needs of a torture survivor with respect to rehabilitation and the fact that this is a freestanding civil right. 26 The Court reviewed its jurisprudence on the matter of removing persons with health problems in Paposhvili v. Belgium, considering that removals that would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) include the removal of “a seriously ill person in which substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she, although not at imminent risk of dying, would face a real risk, on account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering or to a significant reduction in life expectancy”. 27 The Court also established that if, after an analysis of the situation in the receiving country, there remained doubts as to the accessibility of the necessary treatments, individual assurances must be requested before the removal. The complainant reiterates that the State party did not request individual assurances in his case. 5.9 The complainant also notes that the State party questions the gravity of the state of his health. By doing so, the State party questions the evaluation of professionals and the content of detailed medical reports without providing any evidence to the contrary. 5.10 The complainant concludes that the exceptional circumstances of his case justify that his removal to Italy would constitute a violation of articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention, and that the State party failed to undertake an individual evaluation of his case. Additional submission by the complainant 6. On 21 July 2017, the complainant submitted a medical report by the specialized trauma clinic in Geneva, certifying that he was still under treatment and, at the time, suffering an episode of depression of medium to severe intensity. The doctors recommended that the complainant continued his psychotherapeutic treatment. 23 24 25 26 27 Doctors without Border, “Neglected trauma”, pp. 13, 14 and 17. In the report, the organization states that “cultural mediation is often absent or else is carried out by Italian staff within the [national health system]” (p. 16), “the environment within the [national health system] is often unsuitable and overcrowded” (p. 20) and “extraordinary reception centres are often in isolated locations, making integration impossible” (p. 20). Doctors without Borders, “Fuori Campo”. See V.M. and others v. Belgium. REDRESS brief of 27 July 2016 to the Committee against Torture on D. v. Switzerland (communication No. 700/2015). See European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium (application No. 41738/10), judgment of 13 December 2016, para. 183. 9