CAT/C/48/D/364/2008 medical report on the complainant’s children did not constitute an obstacle to their return, since treatment was available in Kinshasa. The Tribunal concluded that the complainant’s children had not established that they personally would be in danger of being subjected to torture if they were to be returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The complaint 3.1 The complainant asserts that his and his children’s deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture because of their Rwandan Tutsi origins, for which they would be persecuted by State agents and members of the community. 3.2 The complainant adds that, although the end of the war has facilitated the inclusion of members of the different sides in the management of the affairs of State, the peace remains uneasy. There has been an unremitting rebellion in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 2005. The goal of this uprising, which is supported by Rwanda and led by Nkunda Batware, a Congolese Tutsi, is to protect persecuted Tutsis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the media and in schools, the instability plaguing the entire country is blamed on Tutsis. State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 4.1 On 26 January 2009, the State party contested the admissibility of the communication on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, given that the complainant had filed a request for reconsideration on 18 December 2008, which was after he had submitted his complaint to the Committee. In a decision dated 30 December 2008, the Federal Office for Migration had denied the complainant’s request. In a letter of 13 May 1999, the State party informed the Committee that the complainant had lodged an appeal before the Federal Administrative Tribunal on 4 February 2009. On 23 June 2009, the State party informed the Committee that the Tribunal had issued a judgement on 19 June 2009 rejecting the complainant’s claims, thus bringing domestic remedies to an end. 4.2 On 28 April 2010, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. After listing the various steps in the asylum procedures undertaken by the complainant and his children, the State party summarizes the grounds advanced for the request for reconsideration filed by the complainant on his own and his children’s behalf on 18 December 2008 (that is, after the complaint had been submitted to the Committee). The complainant informed the Swiss authorities that he had learned that his wife, who had remained in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, had died on 1 October 2008. As a result, he and his children no longer had any social network there that they could count on for support. He also claimed that his children’s psychological state had deteriorated since they had learned of their mother’s death. 4.3 The complainant submitted a certificate from the Work for the Rehabilitation and Protection of Street Children (ORPER), medical certificates and a statement from the Tutsi community in Europe. The State party notes, however, that the complainant provides no new evidence to challenge the Federal Administrative Tribunal judgements of 24 September 2008 and 17 June 2009, which had been handed down following a thorough examination of the case. Nor does the complainant provide the Committee with any explanation for the discrepancies and contradictions discovered by the Swiss authorities. 4.4 In reference to article 3 of the Convention, the State party draws attention to the criteria established by the Committee in its general comment No. 1,2 particularly paragraphs 2 4 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44). GE.12-43679