Migratieweb ve15002236 CAT/C/56/D/569/2013 Advance unedited version able to fly back to Guinea. 3 On 4 S~ptember 2012, the IND rejected the complainant's application, citing a medical report from the Medical Advice Bureau (BMA) , dated 24 August 2012, that found he was fit to fly to Guinea on the condition that he had to be assisted by a psychiatrie nurse. The report also held that if the medical treatment would be stopped, no medica! emergency would occur in the short term. On 17 October 2012, the IND confmned its decision of 4 September 2012. On 20 December 2012, the complainant appealedthis decision before the Court of Almelo, but his appeal was rejected. The complaint 3.1 The complainant submits that the denial ofhis asylum request by the State party and his potential deportation, together with the events' he went through prior to his departure from Guinea as weIl as the human rights record of his country and the current impunity re1ated to the massacre of 28 September 2009, put him at risk of torture or cruelor other inhuman or degrading treatment and constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 The .complainant maintains that hls accounts are consistent with the human rights report on Guinea and on the events that took place in the so-called "Bloody Monday." As reflected in different reports, there was an excessive use of force, including lethal force, by the police in the events of 28 September 2009, in which 150 persons were killedand 40 women publicly raped. Impunity and lack of discipline of the security forces continue to be a concern and the perpetrators ofthe massacre have not even been suspended from duty.4 3.3 Against this background, the complainant claims that there is -a real risk that he would be. tortured or that his security would. be endangered if returned since there is a consistent pattern of gross and massive violations of human rights in Guinea, which according to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, should prevent the State party from deporting him. He also claims that, immediately after hls arrival, he will be detained for taking part in the demonstratîon of 28 September 2009 and accused of starting the gunfrre. Moreover, he further claims that since he witnessed the massacre and was then subjected to . torture, he will be èonsidered a threat to the security forces. He points out that although there is-a new transitional goverrunent, there are still senior military officers in positions of influence in the Guinean Presidential Cabinet. 3.4 The complainant also holds that as a result of the acts of torture, he has scars on hls body and that an examination carried out by Amnesty International's .medical doctors confrrmed that they are consistent with hls allegations of torture. Further, he was' also diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder due to the painful events he faced prior to his departure from his country of origin. 5 State party's observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 By Note Verbale of 21 May 2014, the State party submits that the complainant entered the Netherlands on 18 February 2010, and applied for temporary asylum residence pennit on 19 February 2010. Thefirst interview for asylum took place on 20 February 2010. During the second interview, on 1 April 2010, 'the complainant was· givenan opportunity to elaborate on hls initial testimony. 3 4 5 The complaint does not provide the specific medical reasons that would have prevented him to fly back to Guinea. The complainant refers to the 2012 Amnesty International Reports: Guinea and a Human Rights Watch's report on these events, published on 5 December 2012. The complainant provides a copy oftwo medical reports dated 4 September 2011 and 12 December 2012, issued by Amnesty International and the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Examination. 4 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl