CAT/C/33/D/218/2002 Page 5 nothing to show that the Ecuadorian authorities could not afford the complainant adequate protection from FARE-DP. 4.7 As to the complainant’s allegation that he is at risk of being tortured by members of government forces, the State party notes that before Swedish immigration authorities, the complainant only mentioned in passing that he would risk being killed by government forces should they learn about what he had experienced at Cononaco. However, he said nothing about having been persecuted by Ecuadorian authorities but, on the contrary, he clearly stated that he had never had any problems with the Ecuadorian police or other authorities. He also stated that since he had never been accused of anything, he had been able to receive permission to leave the country. Furthermore, the complainant gave inconsistent information as to who threatened and killed his brother. Before Swedish immigration authorities, he stated that it was members of FARE-DP who threatened his brother, while in his complaint before the Committee, he maintains that his brother’s superiors first threatened him. The State party adds that the fact that the complainant was given permission to leave Ecuador by both the military and the police strongly suggests that he is not wanted by the Ecuadorian authorities. The military must also have learned that the complainant had witnessed the incident at Cononaco; yet, he did not seem to have attracted particular interest from the military or the police. 4.8 The State party concludes that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that he would risk a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Ecuador. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. In this respect the Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee also notes that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not contested by the State party. 5.2 As to the complainant’s allegation that he would be in risk of being tortured by members of FARE-DP, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the issue of whether a State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention, unless the non-governmental entity occupies and exercised quasigovernmental authority over the territory to which the complainant would be returned.3 The Committee notes that the complainant has not disputed the State’s party allegation that the Ecuadorian authorities do not tolerate FARE-DP activities carried out in border areas of the country, which they regard as criminal and link to a series of kidnapping and murder cases. Accordingly, the Committee decides that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 3 See complaint No. 191/2001, S.S v. The Netherlands, Decision of 5 May 2003, para. 6.4