CAT/C/59/D/697/2015 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 6.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint is unfounded. 6.3 The Committee notes first of all that the complainant faces deportation to Belgium. Neither of the parties has implied that the human rights situation in Belgium is likely to give rise to a risk under article 3 of the Convention. Rather, the complainant claims that, because of the historical ties between Belgium and Rwanda and the presence in Belgium of a large Rwandan diaspora with disparate and opposing ethnic and political loyalties (persons involved in the Rwandan genocide; opponents of the regime; and supporters of the current regime), he and his family would be at risk of being subjected to violence by private actors, against whom the Belgian authorities would be unable to provide protection. The complainant has relied extensively on several cases in which the Belgian authorities provided individuals with special protection for their security and on examples of incidents in which Rwandan political opponents in exile and other public figures were allegedly assaulted or otherwise targeted by armed groups. According to the complainant, all these circumstances would make his and his family’s return unlawful under article 3 of the Convention. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s argument that an international arrest warrant has been issued through INTERPOL by Rwanda, which raises the question of his possible chain refoulement to Rwanda by Belgium. 6.5 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant’s claims have been carefully considered by the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, which found that the complainant and his family had failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that they would face a severe and substantiated risk of being subjected to prohibited treatment in Belgium and that the complainant had failed to adduce evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the Belgian authorities would not respect the principle of non-refoulement. 6.6 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with the Dublin Regulation, as the complainant and his family were granted Schengen visas by the Belgian authorities, Belgium is responsible for processing their asylum application. While taking note of the complainant’s claims that an international warrant has been issued for his arrest by Rwanda, where he risks being hanged for high treason, the Committee considers that there is no evidence that Belgium will not consider his asylum application having regard to its obligations under the Convention, to which it is a party, and in particular to the principle of non-refoulement. The Committee considers that the complainant’s arguments that his asylum application will not be examined properly are without merit, given that he has never filed an asylum application in Belgium. 6.7 The Committee further considers that, notwithstanding the examples given by the complainant, it has not been demonstrated that he and/or his family would face a serious and substantiated risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited under article 3 of the Convention. In particular, the complainant has failed to provide evidence to show that the Belgian authorities would have neither the will nor the ability to protect the complainant and/or his family, were they to face threats to their safety. The Committee therefore GE.17-01261 7