A/66/44 bodies into the lagoon by men in military uniform shortly after the suppression by law enforcement personnel of a demonstration. The attempt to dispose of dead bodies was also witnessed by the complainant’s father, who was allegedly captured by men in military uniform and whose mutilated body was found sometime later. He also claimed that the emergency assistance procedure consisting of minimum assistance coupled with surveillance by the Swiss administration police pending removal violated article 22 of the Convention. With regard to the allegations under article 22 of the Convention, the Committee noted the State party’s argument that the emergency assistance, which is granted only on request, was designed to meet an individual’s basic needs, and that the obligation under article 3 was one of non-refoulement, not one of ensuring a high standard of living in the host country. The Committee consequently considered that the complainant did not sufficiently substantiate his allegations under article 22 of the Convention and found this part of the communication inadmissible. The Committee, after examining the claims and evidence submitted by the complainant as well as the arguments from the State party concluded, on the merits, that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if deported to Togo. Therefore, no breach of article 3 of the Convention was found in this complaint. 99. Complaint No. 349/2008 (Güclü v. Sweden) related to a claim by a woman of a violation of article 3 of the Convention in the event of her forcible deportation from Sweden to Turkey. Initially an active and long-standing member of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (the PKK) and a guerrilla soldier, the complainant later started to have doubts about the ideology of the PKK and left its ranks. She claimed that upon her return to Turkey she would be arrested and tortured by the Turkish authorities and/or by the PKK. The complainant further stated that she would not get a fair trial and would be sent to prison, where she would not be protected from the PKK. As to the complainant’s allegation that if returned to Turkey she would be killed by the PKK in retaliation for leaving the organization without permission, the Committee considered that the issue of whether the State party had an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, fell outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. Thus, the Committee found that this claim was inadmissible. The Committee noted that the State party did not dispute the complainant’s involvement with the PKK, but rather argued that her involvement was at a low level. It also noted that while the State party denied that she would be of much interest to the Turkish authorities at the moment, it admitted that if she was pursued by the Turkish authorities, there was a risk that she would be arrested, detained pending trial and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. The Committee further noted that the complainant provided information on a criminal case initiated against her in Turkey, which was uncontested by the State party. The Committee then observed that, according to various sources, including the reports provided by the complainant, the Turkish security and police forces continued to use torture, in particular during questioning and in detention centres, including against suspected terrorists. In conclusion, the Committee noted that the complainant was a member of the PKK for 15 years; that even though she was operating at a low level, she did on occasion work for its leader Öcalan and other high profile PKK leaders; that she is wanted in Turkey, to be tried under anti-terrorist laws and thus was likely to be arrested upon arrival. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considered that the complainant provided sufficient evidence to show that she personally ran a real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture upon her return to Turkey. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the complainant’s removal to that country would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 100. In complaint No. 373/2009 (Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden), the complainants, the husband and daughter of the complainant who submitted a similar communication to the GE.11-45568 153