CAT/C/64/D/742/2016 Human Rights has already decided, in a case involving the transfer to Italy of an asylum seeker undergoing psychiatric treatment, that there was no reason to believe that the complainant would not benefit from access to appropriate medical care. 13 There is no reason to think that the Italian authorities would refuse adequate treatment to the complainant to the extent that his health or his existence were endangered. 4.4 In relation to the complainant’s allegations that he has not had access to an effective remedy in the State party, the State party stresses that the complainant managed, even without legal assistance, to file an appeal with the Federal Administrative Tribunal; that, according to the applicable law, a person may not have the court fees waived when an appeal is manifestly inadmissible; that the complainant was able to cover the fees; and that the Tribunal might accept further evidence to clarify the facts and it enjoys a margin of appreciation on this matter. Furthermore, the State party notes that single-judge decisions are agreed upon by a second judge and that, in case of disagreement, they are brought to a three-judge chamber. The State party concludes that the complainant has had access to an effective remedy. 4.5 The State party also considers that, should allegations under article 16 be considered admissible, they are ill-founded. The State party recalls that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 14 only in very exceptional circumstances may a removal per se constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and that aggravation of an individual’s physical or mental health condition owing to deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16. In the present complaint, the complainant has not claimed or substantiated such exceptional circumstances. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submission dated 16 June 2017, the complainant clarifies that he did not return immediately to Switzerland, giving the Italian authorities the opportunity to provide him with shelter. He considers that the assumption by the State party that he did not give a chance to the Italian authorities to provide shelter is not based on any evidence. He submits that he does not possess substantial evidence on his stay in Italy, but that all the information that he has provided is coherent. However, he was never heard by the State party’s authorities on this matter. 5.2 The complainant notes that the State party recognizes that article 14 of the Convention includes the obligation to cooperate in order to protect the right to rehabilitation, but that it has never engaged in cooperation with the Italian authorities regarding his treatment: it merely informed the Italian authorities of his medical conditions, but no reply was provided. He submits that he is not making the choice to be treated in Switzerland, but simply gaining access to the treatment he needs, which is not possible in Italy. The complainant distinguishes between the obligation to provide redress, compensation and rehabilitation contained in article 14, and considers that only redress and compensation are obligations limited to victims of acts of torture committed within the territory of the State party, or by or against one of its citizens. The right to rehabilitation that he is claiming has no geographical limitation. In its general comment No. 3, the Committee emphasized that States parties’ obligations to provide rehabilitation to victims of torture could not be postponed, which obliged States parties to ensure that such victims had access to the most comprehensive available rehabilitation (para. 12). Furthermore, the complainant notes that, should the State party’s argument about the geographical limitation of the obligations under article 14 be taken into account, Italy would have no obligation towards his rehabilitation. The State party’s argument incurs contradiction and should be left aside. The complainant notes that, currently, the State party is fulfilling its obligation through the medical treatment that he is receiving at the specialized trauma clinic in Geneva. 5.3 Regarding the allegation by the State party that the scope of article 16 does not extend to deportations, the complainant notes that the Committee, in its general comment 13 14 See European Court of Human Rights, A.S. v. Switzerland (application No. 39350/13), judgment of 30 June 2015, para. 36. See Y.G.H. et al. v. Australia (CAT/C/51/D/434/2010), para. 7.4, and M.M.K. v. Sweden (CAT/C/34/D/221/2002), para. 7.3. 7