CAT/C/65/D/758/2016 Italy, taking due account of his particular vulnerability as a victim of torture and an asylum seeker, instead of operating on the assumption that he would be able to obtain appropriate medical care.58 9.10 The Committee notes that, in Italy, the complainant had to live on the streets for three years and that he subsequently travelled to Norway, where, immediately after his arrival and in view of his poor state of health, he received intensive medical care. Subsequently, although the Norwegian authorities had assured him that he would receive adequate medical care upon his return to Italy, the complainant did not receive any kind of assistance from the Italian authorities. The Committee notes that the State party acknowledges the seriousness of the complainant’s health problems, which has been documented in several medical reports submitted during the proceedings. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s argument that, in Italy, his inability to obtain access to accommodation and the specialized medical and psychiatric care that he needs will make it impossible for him, as a victim of torture, to make a full recovery. 59 9.11 The Committee also notes that the State party, without having analysed the complainant’s experience in Italy to date, simply stated that Italy had already agreed to readmit him on three separate occasions and considered that, if need be, the complainant could file a complaint against the receiving State in the event of violation of his rights. In addition, the Committee notes that at no time did the State party take account of the fact that Italy had failed to deliver on the assurances that it had given to Norway when the complainant returned to the country in 2012 and that it had not taken any measures to guarantee him access to rehabilitation services that are tailored to his needs, which would allow him to exercise his right to rehabilitation as a victim of torture. In light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State party has not examined in an individualized and sufficiently thorough manner the complainant’s personal experience as a victim of torture and the foreseeable consequences of his forced return to Italy. The Committee is therefore of the view that the deportation of the complainant to Italy would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10. The Committee, acting under article 2 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s deportation to Italy would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 11. The Committee is of the view that, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, the State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the complainant to Italy. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations. 58 59 14 See also the Human Rights Committee’s Views on Jasin v. Denmark, para. 8.9. See, for example, A.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/742/2016), para. 8.10. GE.19-01969