CAT/C/59/D/697/2015 reason, the complainant is concerned that his asylum application will not be examined impartially. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint on 11 February 2016. It began by pointing out that, when a complainant can travel to a third State that has jurisdiction, the State Secretariat for Migration will not consider an asylum application (article 31 a of the Asylum Act) unless the transfer of the individual concerned to the responsible State under the Dublin III Regulation breaches the obligations of Switzerland under international conventions, in particular the principle of non-refoulement, in which case the State Secretariat is obliged to use the sovereignty clause and to consider the application (Federal Administrative Court decision of 10 May 2011, ATAF 2011/9, preambular paras. 5-7). 4.2 The State party rejects the complainant’s arguments, according to which the domestic authorities relied on the presumption that Belgium would respect fundamental rights, without making an individual assessment of his situation before deciding on his return to Belgium. When, in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, Switzerland is not responsible for considering an asylum application, the authorities are required to ascertain that the transfer to the designated European country is lawful. In so doing, they must consider in particular whether the deportation in question may expose the person concerned to a risk of treatment prohibited under article 3 of the Convention or article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 4.3 According to the State party, the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court considered the complainant’s arguments carefully. These bodies took into account the complainant’s particular political profile and his fears about being transferred to Belgium. Only after it had weighed the grounds cited did the Administrative Court find that the complainant and his family had failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that they would face a severe and substantiated risk of prohibited treatment in Belgium because of an unwillingness or inability on the part of the Belgian police to protect them, should the complainant be threatened. The Court also noted that the complainant had failed to adduce evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the Belgian authorities would not respect the principle of non-refoulement. 4.4 With regard to the complainant’s argument that the Federal Administrative Court ruled on his appeal sitting in a three-judge bench, the State party states that, according to article 21 (1) of the Federal Administrative Court Act (LTAF, RS 173.32), courts generally decide on cases sitting in a three-judge formation. Article 23 of the Act provides that the investigating judge shall decide on certain — enumerated — cases sitting in a single judge formation. Article 111 of the Asylum Act specifies the cases that may be heard by a single judge. As the present case comes within none of the categories listed, the general rule set out in article 21 (1) of the Federal Administrative Court Act is applicable. That is why the ruling of the Federal Administrative Court was rendered by three judges. The complainant’s arguments are therefore without merit. 4.5 The State party further submits that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that he runs a personal, present and substantial risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention in Belgium.3 According to the State party, it is not disputed that, since the complainant and his family have been granted Schengen visas by the Belgian authorities, Belgium is in principle responsible for processing their asylum application, pursuant to article 12 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation. During their hearing before the State Secretariat 3 4 The State party refers to communication No. 635/2014, M.K. and B.B. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 26 November 2015. GE.17-01261