Migratieweb ve15002236 CAT/C/56/D/569/2013 Advance unedited version suffered. In addition, the complainant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. 8.6 The Committee notes the State party's admission that it would have ordered further medical investigation if the .initia:l medical 'findings warninted such an investigation. The Committee observes that such examination would have been warranted a:q.d beneficial for further determinationof the previous occurrenceS .of torture, especially in light of such a strong and almost unequivocal medical reports. This evidence includes findings that the complainant's scats "are highly consistent with a pattern of a physical mistreatment as argued by the person concerned". While the State party points to the alleged discrepancies in the medical reports regardjng the facts as ,submitted by the complainant, it does not clearly refute the findings of the medical examinations themselves. 14 8.7 In light of these considerations read as a who Ie, and taking into account the present political situation and the reports regarding the general human rights situation in Guinea, especially regarding those persons who were involved in events at the Conakry Stadium on 28 September 2009, the complainant' s previous imprisonment and detailed description of torture and· ill-treatment suffered there supported by ·substantiating elements adduced as proof thereof by the complainant, such as medical documentation; the Committee considers that there are substantial grounds for believing that the cümplainant risks being subjected to torture if returned to Guinea. 9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Crue I, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk ofbeing subjected to torture by government officials if returned to Guinea. The Committee therefore concludes that the deportation of the. complainant to Guinea would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 10. The Committee is of the view that theState party hasan óbligation, in accordance with article ·3 of the Convention, to refrain from forcibly· retuming the complainant to Guinea or to any other country where there is a real risk of him being expelled or returned to Guinea. 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 transmÎttal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the present decision. 14 The State party argues, inter alia, that it is "not clear whether due care has been exercised in teaching the conclusions in the medical report" referrin·g to the report by the Amnesty International's Medical Group. Regarding the conclusionabout the psychological pro bi ems suffered by the complainant, the State party also claims that "there is nothing to show that Amnesty International based this conclusion on any objective data" 10 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl