CAT/C/41/D/326/2007 Page 7 argues that the possible aggravation of the complainant’s state of mental health due to his deportation would not amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 5. On 11 September 2008, the complainant submitted that he did not have any comments on the State party’s observations. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State party’s acknowledgment that domestic remedies have been exhausted and thus finds that the complainant has complied with article 22, paragraph 5 (b). 6.4 Concerning the claim relating to the aggravation of M. F.’s mental condition on account of his expulsion to his country of origin, the Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence that the aggravation of the condition of an individual's physical or mental health by virtue of a deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16.14 The Committee notes the medical certificates presented by the complainant which state that he suffers from PTSD. The Committee also notes the State party’s contention that mental health care is available in Bangladesh, a statement not refuted by the complainant. In the absence of exceptional circumstances and in view of complainant’s failure to respond to the State party's argument that medical care was available in Bangladesh, the Committee considers that he has failed sufficiently to substantiate this claim, for purposes of admissibility, and it must accordingly be considered inadmissible. 6.5 With respect to the complainants’ claim under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility of the complaint and accordingly proceeds with its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainants’ removal to Bangladesh would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not 14 See G.R.B. v. Sweden, op.cit., para.6.7; Communication No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 12 May 2004, para.10.2; and Communication No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 16 November 2005, para.7.3.