CAT/C/65/D/758/2016 medical care that he required and that his physical and psychological vulnerability will not be taken properly into account by the Italian authorities. 3.2 The medical report dated 23 October 2012 confirms that the complainant had been attacked by his roommates in the asylum centre in Switzerland as they could no longer tolerate him getting up at all hours of the night on account of his post-traumatic urinary disorders. He requires care and follow-up to which he does not have access in Italy. Without this treatment, he will be subjected to living conditions that are contrary to human dignity. 3.3 Since receiving medical care in Switzerland, his health has improved slowly as a result of receiving specialized treatment on a regular basis. The loss of the therapeutic relationship that he has progressively established with his doctor would prove fatal. The State party should have undertaken an individualized risk assessment and should not have based its decision on general information and on the assumption that he would, in principle, have the right to work and receive social benefits in Italy. Furthermore, the Swiss authorities do not explain how the residence permit issued to him would protect him from the hardship and poverty that he experienced during his previous stays in Italy. 3.4 In light of the foregoing, his deportation to Italy would contravene the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in article 3 of the Convention. 3.5 If he was deported to Italy, the complainant would be left to fend for himself and could again become homeless, totally destitute and have very limited access to medical care. Given his status as a victim of torture and the physical and psychological disorders from which he is suffering, failure to provide him with housing and to guarantee him access to specialized care would amount to humiliating treatment and an affront to his dignity. The deportation decision therefore constitutes a violation of article 14 of the Convention. 3.6 Given his particularly fragile state, the living conditions that he would have to endure if he was deported to Italy would probably constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention. 3.7 In light of the unprecedented migration crisis in the Mediterranean, Italy is no longer able to meet the needs of asylum seekers or to guarantee their access to basic services, such as housing and essential medical care. The situation is particularly degrading to victims of torture who have special medical needs. This situation was acknowledged by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 14 and by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland.15 3.8 The Swiss Refugee Council (OSAR) concluded in 2013 that the Italian system operates on the principle that persons who have been granted protection status must fend for themselves and little accommodation is therefore made available to them. 16 Responsibility for the provision of social assistance lies with the municipality concerned, and services vary from one place to another. Refugees have no recourse to public funds and those who do not have family to support them are left to fend for themselves. 17 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 26 August 2016, the State party challenged the admissibility. 4.2 According to the Federal Administrative Court, the complainant failed to demonstrate in a concrete manner that he would face a situation of severe precariousness and material hardship and that his living conditions in Italy would be onerous and severe to the point that they would constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. The Federal Administrative Court also took account of the medical reports and noted that, according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the forced return of persons in poor health is only likely to constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention for the 14 15 16 17 GE.19-01969 UNHCR, UNHCR Recommendations on Important Aspects of Refugee Protection in Italy, July 2013. Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], No. 29217/12, 4 November 2014. OSAR, Reception conditions in Italy: Report on the current situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin returnees, in Italy, October 2013, p. 44. Ibid., p. 51. 5