4.9 As to the merits, the State party submits that there are no substantial grounds to believe that the complainant would face a real, foreseeable and personal risk of torture by the new government of Somalia on the basis of his family membership. The State party notes that the general situation is improving and that the assessment of the complainant’s claims must be made in the light of current conditions. The State party points again to the new governmental arrangements in Somalia, and the connections with the Barre regime of many member of the government. In the light of the newly established government and the relative stability now emerging in the country, there is no reason to believe that the complainant would face a risk of torture from the government if returned, either on the basis of his family link to Barre or his clan membership or any other reason. 4.10 Nor is there a real, foreseeable and personal risk of torture by Aideed forces or other sub-clans. The State party notes that since the establishment of the new government, prolonged fighting in the capital appears over and it would dispute any claim that current armed factions there exercise any quasi-governmental authority. Since 1999, the Bay area has experienced relative peace and, according to the Independent Expert of the Commission of Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Somalia, life in Baidoa was resuming normality. There is no evidence, whatever the past situation, of current threats from the Marehan clan or Aideed’s forces. Indeed, Aideed is the Chairperson of the Somali Reconciliation and Restoration Council, established in March 2001, of which Rahanwein and other clans are part. Clan strengths and loyalties are much changed from the situation existing at the time of the complainant’s flight. The State party argues that, while there remain dangers in Mogadishu and southern Somalia of falling victim to factional violence, with the establishment of central government these risks are faced by the population at large and do not support any allegation of a personal risk of torture. 8 4.11 Even if the complainant were returned to Mogadishu, which the State party does not propose, the complainant could relocate internally to the relatively stable northwest or northeast of the country. The State party proposes rather that the complainant be returned to Kenya and then, taking advantage of the voluntary UNHCR repatriation program, return to a stable area of the complainant’s choice. Comments by the complainant 5.1 By submission of 27 March 2002, the complainant commented on the State party’s submissions. As to the admissibility of the case, the complainant concedes that his claims have been examined in Australia prior to the lodging of the communication, but with the exhaustion of those remedies the Committee should examine the claims. The complainant claims that his case falls within the principle adopted in Elmi, contending that the State party’s assessment of the Somali political environment flies in the face of generally known facts. He claims there is no central government, and that militia groups are acting in an organised capacity to suppress other clans. 5.2 As to the merits, the complainant rejects the State party’s submissions, contending instead that the political and military environment remains unstable and that he risks torture. The complainant disagrees that the situation is sufficiently altered to allay his fears and that most violence now occurring is privately-motivated. The complainant refers to a variety of reports for the proposition that there is a picture of continuing instability and an environment of risk of human rights abuses. The complainant contends that the TNG has limited authority in the country, being rather confined to Mogadishu. The complainant goes on to argue that the State party’s statements that there exists a central government are contradicted by recent travel advisories issued by the State party which warn against travel to Somalia. 8 Ms. Mona Rishmawi: E/CN.4/2000/110 and Corr.1. 6