4.6The State party observes that, on the complainant’s own account, false charges were lodged and police abuses committed against him on account of strong governmental pressure. The alleged torture took place over six years ago, and the complainant has been politically inactive since January 1997. Given that the Bangladeshi political context has significantly changed since the complainant’s arrival in Sweden, notably by virtue of the defeat of the Awami League Government in the 2001 elections and its replacement by the “anti-Awami League” comprising the complainant’s BFP party and another party, which enjoy good relations with each other, there is no ground currently to suspect politically-motivated interest in the complainant. Even if former opponents sought to locate him, any ill-treatment from such quarters would emanate from private parties without the consent or acquiescence of the State and thus fall outside article 3. 4.7With reference to the “court documents” and statement supplied to the Aliens Appeals Board, the State party observes that it is unable to determine whether these reliably substantiate the contention that legal proceedings were initiated against the complainant in 1997 and remained pending in October 1999. No evidence has been advanced to suggest that these proceedings instigated in the Awami League era currently remain pending. Even if this were so, this would not demonstrate a real and personal risk of torture, and the general human rights situation does not suggest that ipso facto all persons liable to be arrested on criminal charges on return to Bangladesh face a substantial risk of torture. Given the substantial change since 1997 in the complainant’s own and in his country’s circumstances, therefore, he has not made out the necessary case under the Convention that his expulsion violated his rights under article 3. 4.8On the claims under articles 2 and 16, if considered applicable by the Committee, the State party refers to two cases in which there was medical evidence of PTSS and a claim that state of health prevented expulsion. In G.R.B. v. Sweden, the Committee considered that an aggravation of the state of health possibly caused by deportation did not rise to the threshold of treatment proscribed by article 16, attributable to the State party, while in S.V. v. Canada, the Committee considered the claim insufficiently substantiated.b The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on equivalent provisions that have held that ill-treatment must rise to a minimum level of severity, and that there is a high threshold where the case does not concern the State party’s responsibility for infliction of harm. No exceptional circumstances exist in the present case that the enforcement of the expulsion order gives rise to such issues. 4.9The State party notes that the medical reports provided by the complainant suggest a diagnosis of PTSS, with a finding on 16 December 2002 apparently made on the basis of an examination on 31 July 2002 that the complainant showed deep depression with a serious risk of suicide. On 29 October 2002, however, the risk of suicide was described as “very difficult to assess”. The State party observes that mental health issues were invoked for the first time in a new residence application filed in December 2002, three years after the complainant’s arrival and two years after his abscondment, suggesting that a mental deterioration arose as a result of denial of entry to Sweden and his unsettled unlawful presence in the country. On the information available, he did not seek or receive any type of regular medical treatment, or submit to psychiatric care. Nor, to the extent that he is said to require medical attention, would this be unavailable in Bangladesh. Even if his contention of fearing a return to Bangladesh as he suffered from PTSS is relevant to an assessment under article 16, which the State party rejects, the complainant has not made out a substantial basis for this fear. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions 5.1By letter of 15 May 2003, counsel for the alleged victim was requested to make any comments on the State party’s submissions within six weeks, and advised that failure to do so would result in the Committee’s consideration of the case on the basis of the information before it. No such comments were received. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 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 further notes that the State party concedes that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 6.2 To the extent that the complainant argues that the State party would be in breach of articles 2 and 6 through exposing him to possible ill-treatment in Bangladesh, the Committee observes that the scope of the non-refoulement obligation described in article 3 does not extend to situations of ill-treatment envisaged by article 16. Accordingly, the claims under articles 2 and 16 relating to the expulsion of the complainant are inadmissible ratione materiae as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. In addition, concerning the claim under article 16 relating to the circumstances of the complainant’s expulsion, the Committee observes, with reference to its jurisprudence, that an aggravation of the condition of an individual’s physical or mental health through deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of other factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16.c In the absence of exceptional circumstances and in view of counsel’s failure to respond to the State party’s argument that it had not been shown that the appropriate medical care was unavailable to the complainant in Bangladesh, the Committee considers that he has failed sufficiently to substantiate this claim, for purposes of admissibility, and it must accordingly be considered inadmissible. 6.3With respect to the complainant’s claim under article 3 concerning torture, for purposes of admissibility, the Committee considers, particularly in light of the complainant’s account of his previous torture, that he has made out a prima facie case which, if established on the merits, would reveal a violation of article 3. In the absence of any further obstacles to the admissibility of this claim, the Committee accordingly proceeds with the consideration of the merits thereof. 7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Bangladesh violated the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.