CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 Any other treatment a person might suffer abroad, even inhuman or degrading treatment, does not fall within the scope of article 3.11 In view of the foregoing, and in the light of the Committee’s practice in other cases involving deportations to Turkey, the State party is of the view that the complainant cannot be considered a person who would face a real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention if she were to be returned to Istanbul. 4.13 As to the complainant’s allegation that she suffers from mental health problems, in particular from depression with somatic syndrome, that there is a suspicion of posttraumatic stress disorder and that she would be at serious risk of suicide if forcibly returned to Turkey, the State party finds it surprising that she has not invoked her mental health problems during the asylum proceedings. During the hearing of 22 June 2009, she clearly stated that she did not have any health problems. Furthermore, the alleged cause/origin of the complainant’s mental problems is by no means proven; a suspected post-traumatic stress disorder cannot be considered as an important indication of her persecution in Turkey. In any event, the mere fact that the complainant suffers from mental health problems today cannot be considered a sufficient reason not to proceed with the deportation. The State party recalls the Committee’s position that the aggravation of a person’s state of physical or mental health owing to his or her deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment that would be in violation of the Convention. This practice was confirmed in several decisions. The Committee has rejected communications in which the complainants had been able to establish that they had suffered from severe post-traumatic problems caused by past illtreatment, as well as communications in which a risk of suicide in case of return had been substantiated.12 4.14 In the light of the Committee’s practice, the complainant’s sufferings do not reach the threshold required to prevent the enforcement of the deportation, especially since treatment is available in her home country and adequate and accessible medical facilities exist in Istanbul. The State party finally indicates that in case of risk of suicide the Swiss authorities take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of the person concerned, such as, for example, expulsion accompanied by a doctor. Taking into account the complainant’s health condition, Federal Office for Migration had, for example, decided to delay her deportation. 4.15 In the light of the foregoing, the State party submits that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a real and personal risk of torture upon return to Turkey. Her allegations do not permit to conclude that the deportation would expose her to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. Therefore, her deportation to Turkey would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 20 April 2011, the complainant provided her comments. As regards the summary of facts given by the State party, she clarifies that the severe ill-treatment she suffered during her seven days under arrest in 1998 has been corroborated by strong evidence and that both the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Tribunal have 11 12 10 Reference is made to communication No. 201/2002, M.V. v. Netherlands, views adopted on 2 May 2003, para. 6.2. Reference is made to communications No. 228/2003, T.M. v. Sweden, views adopted on 18 November 2003, paras. 2.6, 2.8, 3.2 and 6.2; No. 220/2002, R.D. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2005, paras. 3.3, 5.1 and 7.2; and No. 227/2003, A.A.C. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 16 November 2006, para. 7.3.