A/66/44 submitted by the complainant and in the absence of any satisfactory information from the State party, the Committee concluded that the treatment inflicted on the victim constituted torture under article 1 of the Convention. It also established that the lack of diligence and the impediments to the investigation process, as well as the lack of compensation for the treatment inflicted on the victim, constituted a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1, and a violation of articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Committee stressed that the interference by the State party into the procedure before the Committee by pressuring witnesses to withdraw their testimonies in support of the complainant’s communication constituted an unacceptable interference with the procedure under article 22 of the Convention. 107. Complaint No. 350/2008 (R.T-N. v. Switzerland) concerned a Congolese citizen claiming that his deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. He claimed that as an active member of a political group, he gave three talks about the elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, during which he drew attention to the fact that Joseph Kabila was not of Congolese origin. He claimed that following these meetings he was arrested, tortured and imprisoned for two weeks before managing to escape from prison and to flee the country. Upon arrival in Switzerland, the complainant appeared on a television show explaining the situation of asylum-seekers in Switzerland. He feared that the television broadcast of this programme in the Democratic Republic of the Congo might alert the Congolese authorities of the complainant’s presence in Switzerland and would trigger his persecution upon return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. After examining the claims submitted by the complainant as well as the arguments of the State party, which provided an opinion from both UNHCR and the Swiss Refugee Council considering that, given the personal situation of the complainant, he would not be at risk upon return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Committee concluded that such return would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 108. Complaint No. 352/2008 (S.G. et al. v. Switzerland) related to a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, who claimed that his forcible removal to Turkey would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. The complainant claimed that he had been perceived as a PKK supporter by the Turkish authorities and was being searched for by the police in Turkey. Having taken into account the information available on file, reports concerning the present human rights situation in Turkey and the State party’s objections concerning the credibility of the complainant and the existing inconsistencies in much of the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant in support of his allegations, the Committee concluded that the facts, as a whole, did not permit to conclude that the removal of the complainant to Turkey would amount to a breach, by the State party, of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 109. In complaint No. 357/2008 (Jahani v. Switzerland) the complainant claimed that he would be at risk of torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, in violation of article 3 of the Convention, as he had belonged to the Kurdish minority in the Islamic Republic of Iran and had been arrested there in the past. In addition, he was a regional representative of an Iranian opposition movement acting in Switzerland, participated in radio broadcasts and wrote newspapers articles, activities which could possibly have attracted the attention of the Iranian authorities. The Committee, after examining the claims and evidence submitted by the complainant and the information provided by the State party, and after having taken into account reports on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran at present, concluded that there were substantial grounds to believe that the State party would breach its obligations under article 3, of the Convention, if it proceeded with the forcible removal of the complainant. 156 GE.11-45568