CAT/C/44/D/322/2007 DRC. The State party adds that when applying for asylum, Ms. Njamba stated a name and address of a maternal uncle in the Equateur province. In the domestic proceedings, she also mentioned that her husband’s brother was alive and has been known to help them in the past. It is thus surprising that she now claims before the Committee that he has been killed due to suspicions of treason. The State party notes that the International Committee of the Red Cross offers assistance to trace family members dispersed by the conflict in the DRC, but that the complainants do not seem to have used this service, although it is available from Sweden. The State party therefore maintains that it still cannot be excluded that Ms. Njamba’s husband and other children are still alive in the DRC today. 6.5 Concerning Ms. Njamba’s HIV diagnosis, the State party recalls that anti-retroviral (ARV) medicines are available, in principle free of charge, in all eleven of the provincial capitals of the DRC, which have all joined the national HIV programme. Ms. Njamba would therefore have access to ARV therapy upon return to the Equateur province from where she and her daughter originate. The State party provides details about the availability of health care in general in the DRC. It notes that, according to UNAIDS, ARV therapy coverage over the world, including in Africa, has undergone remarkable improvements in the last few years. With regard to HIV treatment in the DRC specifically, the State party provides details about the availability of such treatment in the various regions of the DRC. In particular, it notes that Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) runs HIV/AIDS projects in, inter alia, Kinshasa, Goma in North-Kivu and Bukavu in South-Kivu. In addition, the German aid organisation GTZ has treatment centres in Kinshasa, Lubumbashi, Bukavu, Kisangani and Mbuji Mayi. Moreover, inter alia, the World Bank contributes towards covering the Government’s costs for distributing free ARV drugs in the DRC. 6.6 Bearing in mind the lack of jurisprudence from the Committee on the issue of whether the expulsion of an alien diagnosed as HIV-positive or suffering from AIDS would constitute a violation of the Convention, the State party invokes a recent Grand Chamber judgment from the European Court of Human Rights.9 In that case, the applicant was a Ugandan national who suffered from AIDS. She claimed that returning her to Uganda would cause her suffering and lead to her early death. Although the Court accepted that her quality of life and life expectancy would be affected if she were returned to Uganda, it found that her removal to Uganda would not give rise to a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the present case, the State party points out that Ms Njamba has still not presented any evidence in support of her statement that her health is deteriorating. In view of the available evidence before the Committee, there is nothing to suggest otherwise than that her health condition is good since the HIV infection has not yet affected her immune system and that she is still in no need of medication. Decision on admissibility 7.1 On 14 November 2008 during the 41st session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 With regard to the requirement, under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, that all available domestic remedies be exhausted, the Committee noted that the complainants had applied for asylum on 29 March 2005. Their application had been examined by the Migration Board on 21 March 2006 and their appeal against this decision was rejected by the Migration Court of Stockholm on 1 September 2006. The complainants had lodged a further appeal before the Migration Court of Appeal, but leave to appeal was 9 8 See N. v. the United Kingdom, application no.26565/05, judgment of 27 May 2008.