CAT/C/65/D/758/2016 Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) if the illness of the person concerned has reached an advanced or terminal stage and he or she is likely to die in the near future. 18 The complainant’s health problems are clearly not severe enough for his deportation to Italy to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. 4.3 The complaint should therefore be declared inadmissible ratione materiae. The complainant does not refer to any grounds and provides no evidence to suggest that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to Italy. The treatment to which he refers therefore falls outside the scope of application of article 1 of the Convention. 4.4 Furthermore, in the Tarakhel v. Switzerland case, which was decided by the European Court of Human Rights, it was not a question of acts of torture within the meaning of the Convention against Torture. In the judgment in question, the Court in no way found that deportation to Italy was inadmissible for asylum seekers, as it had observed in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece.19 This jurisprudence and the practice of the Swiss authorities show that the Italian asylum system is not marred by systemic deficiencies.20 Moreover, the judgment in the Tarakhel case concerned a specific situation involving the deportation of a family with children and is therefore not comparable to the one under consideration. Furthermore, according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, foreign nationals who are subject to expulsion cannot in principle claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a Contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance and services provided by the expelling State. The fact that the complainant’s circumstances, including his life expectancy, would be significantly reduced if he was removed is not sufficient in itself to give rise to a breach of article 3.21 4.5 As to the claim under article 16 of the Convention, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, only in very exceptional circumstances may a removal per se constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, for example when the execution of the deportation order per se would constitute a violation of article 16, given the fragile psychiatric state and the severe post-traumatic disorders from which the complainant suffers as a result of the torture to which he was subjected.22 The Committee also found that the aggravation of the state of an individual’s physical or mental health by virtue of a deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16.23 In this case, the complainant has not described circumstances that might lead the State party to conclude that his deportation would constitute per se cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Accordingly, the claim under article 16 is inadmissible ratione materiae. 4.6 As to the claim under article 14 of the Convention, the application of this article does not go beyond victims of acts of torture committed in the State party’s territory or committed or suffered by a national of the State party. 24 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 28 October 2016, the complainant pointed out that the State party had not contested the fact that he was a victim of torture suffering from serious physical and psychological health problems that require specialized medical care. His extreme vulnerability must therefore be regarded as established. In addition, the State party did not address the intolerable situation facing beneficiaries of international protection in Italy or 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 European Court of Human Rights, N. v. United Kingdom [GC], No. 26565/05, 27 May 2008, and D v. United Kingdom, No. 30240/96, 2 May 1997. European Court of Human Rights, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], No. 30696/09, 21 January 2011. European Court of Human Rights, Mohammed Hussein et al. v. the Netherlands and Italy (dec.), No. 27725/10, 2 April 2013, and Tarakhel v. Switzerland. European Court of Human Rights, A.S. v. Switzerland, No. 39350/13, 30 June 2015, para. 31. M.M.K. v. Sweden (CAT/C/34/D/221/2002), para. 7.3. Y.G.H. et al. v. Australia (CAT/C/51/D/434/2010), para. 7.4. European Court of Human Rights, Naït-Liman v. Switzerland, No. 51357/07, 21 June 2016, paras. 118–120. GE.19-01969