CAT/C/31/D/228/2003 Page 7 2001 elections and its replacement by the “anti-Awami League” comprising the complainant’s BFP party and another party, which enjoy good relations with each other, there is no ground currently to suspect politically-motivated interest in the complainant. Even if former opponents sought to locate him, any ill-treatment from such quarters would emanate from private parties without the consent or acquiescence of the State and thus fall outside article 3. 4.7 With reference to the “court documents” and statement supplied to the Aliens Appeals Board, the State party observes that it is unable to determine whether these reliably substantiate the contention that legal proceedings were initiated against the complainant in 1997 and remained pending in October 1999. No evidence has been advanced to suggest that these proceedings instigated in the Awami League era currently remain pending. Even if this were so, this would not demonstrate a real and personal risk of torture, and the general human rights situation does not suggest that ipso facto all persons liable to arrested on criminal charges on return to Bangladesh face a substantial risk of torture. Given the substantial change since 1997 in the complainant’s own and in his country’s circumstances, therefore, he has not made out the necessary case under the Convention that his expulsion violated his rights under article 3. 4.8 On the claims under articles 2 and 16, if considered applicable by the Committee, the State party refers to two cases in which there was medical evidence of PTSS and a claim that state of health prevented expulsion. In G.R.B. v Sweden, the Committee considered that an aggravation of the state of health possibly caused by deportation did not rise to the threshold of treatment proscribed by article 16, attributable to the State party, while in S.V. v Canada, the Committee considered the claim insufficiently substantiated.2 The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on equivalent provisions that have held that illtreatment must rise to a minimum level of severity, and that there is a high threshold where the case does not concern the State party’s responsibility for infliction of harm. No exceptional circumstances exist in the present case that the enforcement of the expulsion order gives rise to such issues. 4.9 The State party notes that the medical reports provided by the complainant suggest a diagnosis of PTSS, with a finding on 16 December 2002 apparently made on the basis of an examination on 31 July 2002 that the complainant showed deep depression with a serious risk of suicide. On 29 October 2002, however, the risk of suicide was described as “very difficult to assess”. The State party observes that mental health issues were invoked for the first time in a new residence application filed in December 2002, three years after the complainant’s arrival and two years after his abscondment, suggesting that a mental deterioration arose as a result of denial of entry to Sweden and his unsettled unlawful presence in the country. On the information available, he did not seek or receive any type of regular medical treatment, or submit to psychiatric care. Nor, to the extent that he is said to require medical attention, would this be unavailable in Bangladesh. Even if his contention of fearing a return to Bangladesh as he suffered from PTSS is relevant to an assessment 2 Case No 83/1997, Decision adopted on 15 May 1998, and Case No 49/1996, Decision adopted on 15 May 2001.