CAT/C/64/D/783/2016 corroborating his statements. 18 He indicates that he was hospitalized for one week in a psychiatric centre in Zurich19 because of a psychiatric crisis. The complainant submits that he was diagnosed with major depressive and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as severe behavioural, affective and gender-identity disorders. He had to take medicine to treat his suicidal thoughts. The state of his mental health required him to continue the psychiatric therapy for an undetermined period. 2.14 On 31 December 2015, the State Secretariat for Migration directed the complainant to leave Switzerland before 9 January 2016. On 22 April and 28 June 2016, the Swiss authorities attempted to return the complainant by plane to the Islamic Republic of Iran, but he did not present himself at the airport, hence the flights were cancelled. 20 The complainant affirms that his complaint has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that Switzerland would violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention if it forcibly removed him to the Islamic Republic of Iran, since he fears facing a risk of being subjected to torture, or risk to his life, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in his country of origin, due to his homosexuality and atheism. 3.2 The complainant claims that he has been homosexual from a very young age. He submits that the State party’s authorities never questioned him during the asylum interview about his sexual orientation or challenged the credibility of any statements regarding his homosexuality. The complainant considers that the asylum authorities did not effectively assess the possible risks of ill-treatment if removed. Contrary to the findings of the State Secretariat for Migration, the complainant asserts that he only had to conceal his sexual orientation at school, as he feared persecution. 21 He therefore claims that the authorities wrongly held that this abstinence was self-determined, given that it was, rather, imposed on him. In this connection, the complainant refers to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, of 2013,22 which considered that it could not be expected from asylum seekers to conceal their homosexuality in their country of origin to avoid persecution, as that would be incompatible with the recognition of a characteristic so fundamental to a person’s dignity. In addition to this, the complainant submits that he had sexual relations after the end of his studies with an adult man in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but did not want to admit it during the asylum proceedings, also because he had had a subsequent homosexual relationship which involved a minor. 3.3 The complainant claims that, at present, he wants to live openly as a homosexual. He argues that he is still interested in sexual relations even if he stated the opposite during the interviews.23 He submits that he wishes to live with pride about his sexuality, as he was 18 19 20 21 22 23 4 Islamic Republic of Iran. However, stopping the complainant’s psychiatric therapy would be detrimental for him, given that he has suicidal thoughts. The complainant also attaches to his communication a letter from Queer Amnesty, dated August 2016, stating that he suffers from mental disorder. This appears to be a detoxification centre. The State party did not try to forcibly deport the complainant after the Committee’s request for interim measures on 18 November 2016. The complainant submits that he stated several times during the interviews with the State Secretariat for Migration that he could not live as he wanted in his country of origin due to the regime and the predominance of Islam. He adds that, during an interview, in answer to a question about the reasons why he had to conceal his sexual orientation, he said that firstly it was prohibited in his country of origin, and secondly it would have been shameful for his family. He also submits that he has not tried to get in touch with his family. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v. X, Y and Z, C-199/12, C-200/12 and C-201/12, 7 November 2012. The complainant claims that what he indicated during the interviews has been wrongly understood. He might have stated during the interviews that his sexual orientation was not so important to him anymore because he had never experienced any healthy relationship but only rape and intercourse. He also adds that this statement can be understandable from a psychological point of view, considering the post-traumatic disorders he was going through.