CAT/C/44/D/322/2007 4.6. Considering the complainants’ claim that their forced return to the DRC would put them at risk of being arrested, interrogated, imprisoned and possibly being subjected to torture and then killed by the security services, the State party submits that this claim is equally general and that the complainants have not presented any circumstances which would explain why they face a personal risk. While the complainants submit that persons forcibly returned to the DRC are subjected to abuses, the State party does not find support for this contention in the generally available information on the country. Examples of interrogations upon return to the DRC exist, but no further abuses are reported to have been committed by the authorities in these cases. Moreover, the State party notes that the complainants came to mention these specific circumstances for the first time in their new application to the Migration Board, as late as 21 March 2007. 4.7 With regard to a possible claim under article 16, the State party invokes the Committee’s prior jurisprudence and noted that no violation of this provision was ever found in cases regarding expulsion. Invoking the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the State party notes that the Court has only found a violation of article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights in very exceptional circumstances when the person to be expelled had reached the advanced stages of AIDS and would face a lack of treatment as well as a lack of social and moral support in the receiving country. 5 In the present case, the State party submits that no such exceptional circumstances exist. Indeed, anti-retroviral medicines are available, in principle free of charge. Considering Ms. Njamba’s health condition, the State party notes that she has not reached the stage of AIDS, nor does she suffer from any HIV-related illnesses. Her medical certificate shows that she will be in no need of medication within the next few years. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 20 February 2008, the complainants submitted that they did not have any comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 On 24 June 2008, the complainants reiterated that the whereabouts of Ms. Njamba’s husband are still unknown and that they believe him to be dead. They explain that they did not want to mention his political activities in the asylum procedure because they were traumatised by the events they had witnessed. Moreover, Ms. Njamba did not want to put her husband in danger by revealing details of his political activities to the asylum authorities. Additional comments by the State party 6.1 On 8 October 2008, the State party points out that the new circumstances concerning the disappearance of the complainants’ family members had never been presented to the domestic migration authorities, but were introduced for the first time in their complaint to the Committee, i.e. more than two years after their initial asylum application. The complainants did not invoke these circumstances before the Migration Court in an appeal against the Migration Board’s decision. The State party recalls that in cases where the asylum seeker wishes to invoke new circumstances as ground for their asylum application, there is a domestic remedy available to them under Chapter 12, Sections 18 and 19 in the 2005 Aliens Act. It notes that the complainants did not appeal against the Migration Board’s decision not to grant them a residence permit. In their appeal, they could have invoked the new circumstances they invoked before the Committee. Since they have not 5 6 See European Court of Human Rights, D. v. United Kingdom, judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1997-III, p.794, para.54.