CAT/C/56/D/671/2015 enforcement of defence rights and the execution of ratified human rights conventions. The Office of Immigration and Nationality has requested the assistance of the United States Attorney’s Office, whose response revealed various inconsistences and false statements in the complainant’s submission.10 The State party notes that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to substantiate his claims. It states that it is aware of reports of brutality and use of excessive use of force by United States law enforcement personnel. However, this cannot be decisive on its own. 6.6 The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence,11 arguing that the question at stake is whether the complainant risks torture upon return to the United States at present. With regard to the complainant’s allegations related to torture experienced in the past and subsequent post-traumatic stress disorder, the State party maintains that the expert opinion filed by the complainant is “not suitable for determining the real cause of the disease considering that it is only based on the assertions of the patient”. It further argues that, even accepting the alleged causal link between the complainant’s former imprisonment and his disorder, the execution of imprisonment in general may cause in itself depression, panic seizure or other trauma/disorder. Accordingly, the State party notes that the disorder, even if developed under prison conditions, does not presuppose the experience of torture. 6.7 The State party submits that, at the request of its Ministry of Justice, the United States Department of Justice gave its assurance that, should the complainant be incarcerated, the United States Attorney’s Office will assist him by conveying any valid concerns demonstrated to the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons. 6.8 The State party notes, as to the alleged past ill-treatment, that the prison file of the complainant, contrary to his assertions, indicates that he purportedly made false allegations while in prison and his transfers were largely a result of his own conduct. Additionally, according to information given by the United States Attorney’s Office, there is no record either of any claim that his Jewish faith had anything to do with the alleged attacks or of any allegations of anti-Semitism or comments related to his faith; on the contrary, the complainant repeatedly reported to prison officials that he was Catholic. 6.9 As to the letters threatening the complainant’s life, the State party contests their evidentiary value as the sender and the place of departure cannot be identified. Nevertheless, it argues that, even if the letters would be admitted as documents having probable value, the risk of being subjected to assault by private individuals falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 6.10 Concerning the allegations of solitary confinement, the State party submits that the claim is based on mere speculations as to what may occur if the complainant were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and cannot amount to prima facie evidence that the facts asserted will in fact occur. It also argues that, even if substantiated, solitary confinement does not in itself constitute torture and must still meet the definition of article 1 of the Convention. The State party has no reason to believe that solitary confinement is used generally in the United States or would be used in the complainant’s case as there is no evidence to suggest that “solitary confinement” is used in United States prisons in any way other than incidentally to lawful sanctions. 6.11 The State party submits that the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the extradition is only for the charges of fraud, money laundering and forgery of private documents (indictment counts 1-3) and not for the charge of giving false evidence. The United States Attorney’s Office twice gave its assurance that the United States 10 11 8 The State party does not elaborate further. Communication No. 220/2002, M.M.K. v. Sweden, Decision adopted on 2 May 2005, para. 8.5.

Select target paragraph3