CAT/C/46/D/350/2008 provides copies of medical reports issued by psychologists and therapists which attest to his state of health since arriving in Switzerland. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint on 18 February 2009. Briefly reviewing the facts as presented by the complainant, the State party contends that he has presented no new evidence to the Committee, except perhaps for the information on his deteriorating state of health. On this point, the State party recalls that the judicial authorities, and specifically the Federal Administrative Court, considered the complainant’s situation in depth prior to issuing the decisions of 1 February and 20 June 2008 and that none of the arguments put forward by the complainant provided sufficient grounds to challenge their decisions. The State party also underlines that, in his communication, the complainant failed to explain the inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in his allegations, although they had been clearly highlighted by the competent Swiss authorities. 4.2 Recalling the provisions of article 3 of the Convention, the State party refers to the case law of the Committee and its general comment No. 1. Pursuant to paragraph 6 et seq. of general comment No. 1, the author must establish that he would face a personal, present and serious risk of being subjected to torture if deported to his country of origin. The State party notes that this provision means that the grounds must go beyond mere suspicion and that they must demonstrate a serious risk. Comparing the various factors to be taken into account in assessing this risk with the complainant’s specific situation, the State party acknowledges that the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is worrying. However, based on the case law of the Committee and the aforementioned general comment, the situation in the complainant’s country does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds to conclude that the complainant would be at risk of being subjected to torture in the event of his return. 4.3 With regard to the complainant’s allegations of torture, the State party notes that the allegations were presented to the Committee without further details being given. The only items of evidence presented to substantiate the allegations in the course of the proceedings were two medical reports, dated 27 September 2006 and 30 August 2007, which had been considered by the Federal Office for Migration in its decision of 12 July 2007, and by the Federal Administrative Court in its judgement of 1 February 2008, respectively. The State party emphasizes that prior to submitting the two medical reports the complainant had not at any time raised such allegations of torture before the Swiss authorities. These allegations were in fact raised for the first time while the complainant was being questioned about the content of the first medical report, on 28 March 2007. The State party adds that both reports rested on a case history based on the patient’s account alone, and did not therefore prove the veracity of the alleged facts, notably with regard to the circumstances, the reasons or even the perpetrator of the ill-treatment. Furthermore, the reports made no mention of signs of physical torture. 4.4 The State party does not dispute the mental health problems documented by the doctors, but notes that the medical reports did not prove the alleged cause of the mental health problems, which, moreover, the attending physicians attributed to other factors. The medical reports indicated that the complainant’s suffering was attributable to his separation from his family and his precarious status in Switzerland. The State party adds that the problems from which the complainant appears to be suffering are not in any case of sufficient gravity to constitute an obstacle to his deportation, especially since he has the option of consulting a doctor in his country of origin by requesting, if necessary, financial assistance for his return. The State party therefore endorses the assessment made by the domestic judicial authorities and contends that the medical reports do not establish the GE.11-43878 5