- 132 which he is suffering must be considered serious. The complainant claims that essential emergency medical treatment might be necessary and that hospital conditions in Sri Lanka, notwithstanding the contrary view of the Swiss Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters, would not permit appropriate medical treatment. Observations of the State party on the admissibility and merits of the communication 4.1 The State party did not challenge the admissibility of the communication and made its observations on the merits in a letter dated 21 August 2000. 4.2 The State party first of all considered the decision by the Swiss Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters. 4.3 The State party notes that, although the Commission considered the appeal to be manifestly ill-founded and hence could have been summarily rejected, it nevertheless undertook to examine it in detail. 4.4 The State party recalls that the Commission, like the Federal Office for Refugees, found that the complainant had not proved he had suffered serious harm that might give him reason to fear, objectively and subjectively, persecution if he returned to Sri Lanka. According to the State party, the complainant has not in fact established that there is a personal, concrete and serious risk that he will be subjected, if sent back to his home country, to treatment prohibited under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. According to the State party, it follows from the decision by the Swiss Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters that, in the light of Switzerland’s international commitments, the return (“refoulement”) of the complainant is lawful. The State party recalls that the Commission rejected the arguments put forward by the complainant, who cited his state of health in objecting to his refoulement. 4.5 Secondly, the State party considered the merits of the Commission’s decision in the light of article 3 of the Convention and the Committee’s jurisprudence. 4.6 The State party states that the complainant in his complaint merely recalls the grounds he had invoked before the national authorities. According to the State party, the complainant produces no new information that might call into question the decision of the Federal Office for Refugees of 18 August 1999 and the Commission’s decision of 10 December 1999. The State party asserts that the complainant provides no explanation to the Committee of the inconsistencies and contradictions in his allegations. On the contrary, according to the State party, the complainant merely confirms them, since, for reasons unknown to the Swiss authorities, he claims to have been arrested again on 3 January 1999 by the Colombo police and then to have been brought before the court on 10 February 1999. The State party recalls that those claims were supposed to be confirmed, according to the complainant, by the Colombo police document dated 23 August 1999. 4.7 The State party finds these claims to say the least surprising, since during the internal procedure, the complainant initially stated spontaneously that he had not been arrested again by the police or the CID after April 1997. During the hearing, however, the complainant claimed to