CAT/C/46/D/310/2007 7.4 The information about the interrogation of the complainant’s family members during visits to Syria was brought to counsel’s knowledge by the family members. According to counsel, the complainant himself is extremely passive when requested to present information, a behaviour which was typical for persons suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. It was not possible to obtain any evidence apart from the passport copies submitted by the complainant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering an allegation in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. It notes that the State party has conceded that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee has also ascertained, as it is required to in accordance with 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. 8.2 The Committee notes that the State party has raised an objection to admissibility to the effect that the communication is manifestly unfounded under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. In this connection, the Committee considers that a distinction must be made between (a) the complainant’s deportation to Syria in January 1997 and (b) the expulsion order currently pending against him. 8.3 With regard to the complainant’s deportation in 1997, the Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that even assuming that the complainant was tortured on return to Syria, such risk of torture must have been foreseeable at the time of the enforcement of the expulsion order against the complainant on 5 January 1997 for a violation of article 3 of the Convention to be found. The Committee recalls that the complainant did not apply for asylum in Sweden prior to his deportation. It also notes that his contradictory statements about his nationality, personal circumstances and his travel to Sweden before the State party’s authorities undermined his credibility and made it more difficult for the Swedish authorities to assess his risk upon return to Syria. The Committee therefore finds that the complainant has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that his risk of torture upon return to Syria was foreseeable for the State party at the time of his deportation. It concludes that this part of the communication is therefore inadmissible as manifestly unfounded under article 22 of the Convention and rule 113(b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 8.4 With regard to the current expulsion order, the Committee considers that the complainant has adduced sufficient elements, including a copy of the judgement of the Syrian Supreme State Security Council and two medical reports, to substantiate his claim for purposes of admissibility. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares this part of the communication admissible and proceeds to the consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the enforcement of the current deportation order against the complainant would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to a State where there are 13