CAT/C/53/D/482/2011 served as a basis for the decisions of the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. 4.3 With regard to the risk of being tortured if deported to their country, the State party notes that at no time in the proceedings have the complainants claimed that they have been subjected to treatment that meets the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, they have provided no evidence of such treatment. Therefore, none of the four criteria used to define torture in article 1 of the Convention has been met. In reality, the complainants are invoking a violation of their right to life, which is not a right protected under the Convention. Therefore, the complainants’ claim that their deportation to Kosovo would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention is unfounded. 4.4 The criterion concerning the involvement of public authorities in the infliction of pain or suffering is not satisfied in the complainants’ case either. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, as illustrated by communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, “the issue whether the State party has 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, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention”.7 The State party notes that the complainants are not claiming that there is a risk of torture at the hands of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, at their instigation or with their consent or acquiescence. They claim only that the police are unable to protect them from two individuals and that the judicial system in Kosovo is very weak. 4.5 In this regard, the State party notes that the Federal Administrative Court analysed the allegations in depth, took into account the capabilities of the Kosovo police and evaluated the action taken by the police in response to the complainants’ claims. The State party finds no evidence that might give reason to believe that the Kosovo authorities would tolerate or encourage physical attacks against the complainants. Furthermore, the complainants have the possibility of moving to an urban area if they continue to feel unsafe in their village. The State party also notes that the complainants are not vulnerable persons and have a place to live and sources of income in their country. 4.6 The State party also contends that the fifth complainant, H.S., made several trips to Kosovo in 2009 while the asylum proceedings were under way, despite claiming to be a victim of murder attempts in his country. He is recorded as having crossed the border between Albania and Kosovo on several occasions at a crossing point not far from the complainants’ village. 8 At the border checks, H.S. presented a Kosovo passport, the existence of which he had concealed from the Swiss authorities responsible for asylum procedures. The Swiss authorities also noted that H.S. disappeared on 15 January 2010 and reappeared on 23 March 2010. 4.7 The State party concludes that none of the complainants would be at risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited under article 1 of the Convention if returned to their country. It requests the lifting of the interim protection measures and a finding that article 3 of the Convention would not be violated in the event of deportation, since there are no substantial grounds for fearing that the complainants would be exposed to a real and personal risk of torture if they returned to Kosovo. 7 8 GE.15-00578 Communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, para. 6.5. The State party also cites communication No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, para. 10.4, in which the Committee confirmed this interpretation. The State party attaches a note from the authorities dated 24 February 2011 which contains the records on H.S.’s border crossings. 7