CAT/C/65/D/758/2016 on Human Rights, to which the respondent State is a party, 50 which includes no exception and also links the two concepts in the interpretation of article 3. The Committee emphasizes in this context that the European Court of Human Rights systematically highlights the mandatory nature of the principle of non-refoulement and hence of the prohibition of the transfer of an applicant to a State where he is at risk of being subjected to torture and illtreatment.51 It is clear from all these rules that international law now extends the principle of non-refoulement to persons exposed to risks other than torture. 52 8.7 In light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State party’s plea of inadmissibility of the communication must be rejected and that the complainant has not shown that the facts, as presented by him, raise separate issues under articles 14 and 16 of the Convention. It decides to proceed to its consideration of the merits of the allegations submitted under article 3 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 The Committee recalls, at the outset, that the Dublin III Regulation is based on the principle that an asylum application must be examined by the authorities of the Member State of the European Union that received the first asylum application (the application is examined by a single Member State). However, article 3 (2) of the Regulation states that it may be impossible to transfer an applicant for asylum to the “State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment”. In light of these provisions and article 3 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the scope for the exercise of States’ discretion in the context of the application of the Dublin Regulation demands an individual examination of each situation, and rules out the possibility of adopting and implementing individual deportation orders in cases that would expose the person concerned to a real and serious risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or acts of torture. A similar interpretation has been adopted by several human rights bodies. Thus, the Human Rights Committee, in its Views on Jasin v. Denmark, concluded that an individual decision taken pursuant to the Dublin Regulation would violate the complainants’ rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also draws attention to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which, in a judgment handed down on 21 January 2011 in the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece case, concluded that a decision concerning expulsion adopted by the State party pursuant to the Dublin Regulation constituted a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the Committee is entitled to examine decisions adopted by national authorities on the ground that they may violate article 3 of the Convention. 9.3 The Committee must therefore determine in the present case, taking into account the factors set out above, whether the deportation of the complainant to Italy would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 9.4 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture or illtreatment upon return to Italy. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account 50 51 52 12 See general comment No. 4, para. 26. See Saadi v. Italy, No. 37201/06, 28 February 2008, and Ramzy v. the Netherlands, No. 25424/05, 20 July 2010. See also the Human Rights Committee’s interpretation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its general comment No. 20 (1992): “States parties must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement” (para. 9). GE.19-01969