CAT/C/49/D/435/2010 3 of the Convention. Since the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded, according to the State party. 4.17 In view of the fact that the complainant left Sweden on 20 November 2010, the State party finds it relevant for the Committee to establish whether the complainant still wishes to maintain his communication before the Committee. Should the Committee receive information that the complainant does not wish to maintain his communication, the State party invites the Committee to discontinue the communication. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 31 May 2012, the complainant informed the Committee that Sweden had proceeded with his forcible return to the United Republic of Tanzania, but he managed to escape during a stopover in a third country. At the moment, the complainant is hiding in the third country. On 5 June 2012, he submitted his comments to the State party’s observations. On the general situation of human rights in Tanzania, he maintains that the State party lacks reliable, genuine, comprehensive and independent information on the general situation there. He further notes that the United States Department of State country reports are not credible, independent or complete. As to the situation of journalists in Tanzania, he refers to different reports from the Internet indicating the ban of newspapers, journalists’ protests and searches of independent newspapers’ offices and editors’ homes in Tanzania. 5.2 On the issue of whether he is still personally at risk of being subjected to torture, the complainant submits that the fact that he is facing such a risk is evident by his past experience in 2002 and the fact that in 2007 he was banned from practicing his profession as a journalist. He notes that the State party has failed to present concrete evidence that he would not be subjected to ill-treatment in the United Republic of Tanzania and adds that the State party, as well as its migration authorities, had based their conclusions on mere assumptions. 5.3 As to the issue of his medical record, the complainant notes that there are no medical doctors specializing in torture injuries in Africa. 5.4 In conclusion, the complainant explains that he wishes to maintain his communication before the Committee as he was forcibly removed and that he is still in need of international protection. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by 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, and notes that, as required by article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, domestic remedies have been exhausted. 6.3 The Committee has noted that the State party submits that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. It considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention, which should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility and declares the communication admissible, and proceeds with its consideration on the merits. 8