CAT/C/34/D/221/2002 Page 10 4.13 As to the claim under article 16, the State party contests the complainant’s allegation that because of his “fragile psychiatric condition and severe PTSD”, a deportation of him would amount to a cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 16, paragraph 1. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in G.R.B v. Sweden4, and S.V. et al v. Canada5., and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and submits that only in very exceptional circumstances may a removal per se constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Such exceptional circumstances have not been presented in the complainant’s case: (a) Firstly, because the complainant has presented scant medical evidence in connection with his asylum application. Before the Migration Board, he did not invoke any medical evidence at all. Before the Aliens Appeals Board, he submitted a medical certificate from the Fittja health care centre, which states that he is severely traumatised; it does not state that he suffers from PTSD or that he contemplated suicide. In addition,the case file of the immigration authorities reveals that the complainant, despite his health problems, worked in a restaurant in Stockholm. The State party submits that the fact that the complainant did not invoke any medical evidence until his application was pending before the Aliens Appeals Board, may indicate that his medical condition has deteriorated primarily as a consequence of the Migration Board’s decision to reject his asylum application. (b) Secondly, there is no substantial basis for the complainant’s fear of returning to Bangladesh. He has family in Bangladesh to support him, and medical care is available if needed, at least in a big city like Dhaka where most of the family members live. (c) Thirdly, the enforcement authorities in Sweden are obligated to implement the deportation in a human and dignified manner which takes into account the alien’s health. The complainant’s comments: 4 5 Communication No. 83/1997, Views adopted on 15 May 1998. Communication No. 49/1996, Views adopted on 15 May 2001.