- 139 similar to those in the case of Elmi v. Australia,b where the Committee found a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The petitioner also refers to relevant United Nations bodies which have made it clear that they are opposed to the involuntary repatriation of failed asylum-seekers to Somalia.c The complaint 3. The petitioner claims that, due to the previous attacks the petitioner has suffered at the hands of the USC, there are substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to Somalia, and, therefore, Australia would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention if he were returned there. The petitioner points out that according to respected sources, “a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights”, prevails in Somalia, and refers in this regard to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It is claimed that the petitioner himself would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Somalia. He also says that his clan is a minority clan and, therefore, would be unable to protect him. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 The State party submits that this communication is inadmissible ratione materiae on the basis that the Convention is not applicable to the factual situation submitted by the petitioner. In particular, the State party contends that the treatment the petitioner may or may not be subjected to if he is returned to Somalia does not fall within the definition of torture as set out in article 1 of the Convention. The State party submits that to be classified as torture, the given conduct must inflict “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental”. The State party is of the opinion that, although past events are a guide to what may occur in the future, the past incidents alleged by the petitioner do not indicate that it is foreseeable that he would be subjected to torture if he returned to Mogadishu. It concedes that the political situation in Somalia makes it possible that the petitioner may face violations of his human rights, but contends that such violations will not necessarily involve the kind of acts referred to in article 1 of the Convention. 4.2 According to the State party, the petitioner alleges that he will be at risk from members of the USC and in danger because he had formerly worked as an informer with UNOSOM, but he does not allege that he would be at risk or danger of such acts as would contravene the Convention. In evidence presented to the RRT the petitioner stated that “he could be attacked by Hawiye clanspeople to extort money from him to support their militia, the USC”. However, the threat of extortion does not fall within the definition of article 1 of the Convention. 4.3 According to the State party, the petitioner has not adduced substantial evidence that he is faced with a risk of torture by the USC that is over and above the risks faced by every resident of Mogadishu caught between factional fighting of armed groups. It contends that the domestic review processes expressed serious reservations as to the veracity of the petitioner’s account of events, including conflicting accounts of the incident involving the death of his wife and the injury to himself. According to the State party, at the initial airport interview, the petitioner failed to provide details that either his sister had been raped and killed in 1991 or that his sister-in-law had been killed in a shooting incident in 1991 which also resulted in the petitioner being wounded. The petitioner initially stated that he had never been outside Somalia but