CAT/C/65/D/758/2016 the importance of maintaining the therapeutic relationship that he has established with doctors in Switzerland in order to ensure his proper rehabilitation and to prevent his state of health from deteriorating. 5.2 The deportation of the complainant to Italy would constitute degrading treatment within the meaning of article 16 and would also violate the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in article 3. As an asylum seeker, he belongs to a particularly vulnerable population group that is in need of special protection. 25 The European Court of Human Rights26 and the Human Rights Committee27 have found that exposing an asylum seeker to destitution may constitute a violation of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. 5.3 The notion of vulnerability is not limited to families with young children but may also extend to young men and victims of torture. Despite his case not concerning a family with children, the complainant is, as has already been established, an extremely vulnerable individual owing to the state of his physical and mental health and his need for ongoing care, which has not been contested by the State party. 5.4 The State party does not contest that the living conditions for beneficiaries of international protection in Italy are intolerable. A report published by OSAR in August 2016 underlines the systemic deficiencies of the reception system in Italy, especially with regard to accommodation.28 5.5 The complainant refutes the statement that the Committee would only recognize deportation to constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in exceptional cases and considers that the complaint clearly demonstrates that his case involves “very exceptional” circumstances in the light of which his deportation to Italy would constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention. He also questions the relevance of the M.M.K. v. Sweden case referred to by the State party, as the complainant had not argued that his case involved “very exceptional circumstances” and had been deported to his country of origin where he had a family network and where access to the medical care that he needed was guaranteed. 5.6 As to the violation of article 14, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence and its general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, that article has no geographical limitation. According to the jurisprudence, specialized rehabilitation services and programmes must be made available to victims who are asylum seekers or refugees, and each State party must ensure that victims of torture have access to effective rehabilitation, regardless of the perpetrator. The complainant has access to regular and specialized treatment and the State party is therefore meeting in full its obligations under article 14. Since the complainant will not have access to effective rehabilitation in Italy, his deportation would constitute a violation of article 14 of the Convention. 5.7 In conclusion, the State party has not sufficiently assessed the complainant’s case, as it did not consider it necessary to take into account the “exceptional circumstances” characterizing it. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 9 January 2017, the State party submitted observations on the merits. According to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, 29 the complainant must prove that there are “substantial” grounds to believe that there is a “personal and present” risk of him being subjected to torture if deported to his country of origin. The existence of such a risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. There must be additional grounds for qualifying the risk of torture as “substantial” (paras. 6 and 7). 25 26 27 28 29 GE.19-01969 M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, para. 251. M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece. Jasin v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014). OSAR, Reception conditions in Italy: Report on the current situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin returnees, in Italy, August 2016. This general comment was replaced on 6 December 2017 by general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22. 7