CAT/C/64/D/742/2016 3.7 Finally, the complainant argues that his situation as a victim of torture with severe post-traumatic stress disorder and a dependency on his brother, as explained in his medical report, together with the lack of health care and a social support network in Italy, constitute exceptional circumstances that would render his deportation to Italy cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16. For the same reasons, the complainant’s deportation to Italy would violate the principle of non-refoulement and article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its submissions dated 21 October 2016 and 2 March 2017, the State party contested the admissibility of the complainant’s allegations in relation to articles 14 and 16 of the Convention ratione materiae. According to the State party, the obligations to provide redress, compensation and rehabilitation contained in article 14 are limited to victims of acts of torture committed within the territory of the State party, or by or against one of its citizens. The primary aim of this article being to re-establish the dignity of the victim, States parties have a margin of appreciation in how they achieve this. Neither article 14 nor the Committee’s general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 exclude the possibility of cooperation between States parties to ensure rehabilitation. Victims do not have a right to obtain a specific measure from a service provider of their choice in the State of their choice. The State party also notes that the Committee’s jurisprudence has established that the scope of the non-refoulement obligation described in article 3 does not extend to situations of ill-treatment envisaged by article 16.11 Since Italy has recognized the competence of the Committee to receive and examine individual complaints, the complainant may file a new complaint and request interim measures if Italy were to expel him to Eritrea. 4.2 The State party notes that Italy is party to a number of international treaties on human rights, the prevention of torture and the status of refugees. It notes that the capacity of Italy to shelter refugees is certainly under great pressure at present, but the system has certainly not collapsed, as recognized by the European Court of Human Rights in, inter alia, Mohammed Hassan et al. v. the Netherlands and Italy.12 Some of these decisions by the European Court of Human Rights concerned vulnerable persons. The State party also considers that the asylum procedure has not failed structurally in Italy, as is the case in Greece. The State party notes that, in Tarakhel v. Switzerland, quoted by the complainant, the Court did not oppose the transfer of asylum seekers to Italy, but only requested, in the case of a family with small children, that personal assurances be requested. If the complainant were to find himself in a situation violating his dignity or any of his human rights in Italy, he could claim his rights directly before the Italian authorities. However, he left Italy before the authorities could examine his application, not giving the State the opportunity to decide on the matter or to provide him with adequate shelter. The State party considers that the complainant has not substantiated his claims that the Italian authorities provided him with information leaflets without translation insofar as he did not submit a copy of those leaflets. The State party notes that the complainant has not claimed to be a victim of torture or any other treatment prohibited by article 3 of the Convention in Italy. In those circumstances, the State party considers that all allegations in connection with article 3 are ill-founded. 4.3 The State party further considers that, should allegations under article 14 of the Convention be considered admissible, they do not disclose a violation. The State party notes that the complainant is a young man with no dependants and that there are no reasons to think that his health problems are serious or invalidating. He was able to live without his brother for several years and able to arrive in Europe without his help, meaning that his brother’s presence is not essential. The current situation of the complainant is not one of a particularly vulnerable person. The complainant’s medical records were transmitted to Italy, which has a medical system very similar to that in Switzerland. The European Court of 11 12 6 See T.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/31/D/228/2003), para. 6.2, and B.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/27/D/166/2000), para. 7.4. Application No. 40524/10, decision of 27 August 2013.