Migratieweb ve15002236 CAT/C/56/D/569/2013 Advànce uriedited version 6.3 The State party also notes that even if it can be assumed that the complainant had been tórtured in the past, this does not necessarily ruean that more than six years later, he wil1 be tortured again ifreturned to his home country.9 6.4 Regarding the complainant's health situation, including his suicide attempts, the State party refers to the Committee's jurisprudence, according to which, the aggravation of the person's health as a result of deportation does not amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by article 16 of the Convention. 10 6.5 The State party sub mits that the Medical Advisor'sOffice, upon the request by the complainant, examined his case, and made a fmding that the he was fit to travel, although accompanied by a psychiatrie nurse, and transferred to psychiatrist upon arrival. The State party claims that such psychiatrie care is available in Guinea,. 6.6 On 5 November 2015, the corilplainant, responding to the State party's further observations, reiterates his position. He sub mits that small inconsistencies in: his story regarding the medicines he was taking, hls journey to Conakry were due .to his age and inexperienceo Regarding the medical evidence that he has provided, he sub mits that the doctors, especially those who specialize in treating persons with signs of torture, are in best position to make conclusions about post-traumatic psycholögical symptoms and. stress dis orders. The doctors are unambiguous in their conclusion that these symptoms are directly related to torture. 6.7' Regarding the risk of torture upon return, the complainant submits that those responsible for the massacre' at the stadium have not been punished. He also fears that, if returned, he will be questioned about his whereabouts duriilg the past six years. The complainant also mentions that there is a risk that he will commit suicide if returned. The complainant therefore reiterates that his return to Guinea would constitute violation of' article 16 of the Convention. . ,Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Corivention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to dounder artic1e 22, paragraph 5 (a), ofthe Convention, that the same matterhas not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlemenL 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the , Convention, it shall not consider any c01l1lIlunication from ah individual unless it. has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that in the present case, the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility, declares the communication ad111issible and proceeds with its examination on the merits, as far as the complainant' s claim under article 3 cif the Convention is concerned. 9 10 The State party refers to, inter alia, communication No. 235/2003, MS.H. v Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2005; communication N 00 186/2001, K.K. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 11 November 2003. The State party rèfers to communication 18312001, B.S.S.'v Canada, decision adopted on 12 May 2004. 8 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl