CAT/C/64/D/742/2016 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has admitted that all available domestic remedies were exhausted. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant’s allegations under articles 14 and 16 are inadmissible ratione materiae because obligations to provide redress, compensation and rehabilitation contained in article 14 are limited to victims of acts of torture committed within the territory of the State party, or by or against one of its citizens, and because the scope of the non-refoulement obligation described in article 3 does not extend to situations of ill-treatment envisaged by article 16. The Committee also notes the complainant’s arguments that the right to rehabilitation has no geographical limitation, as implied by the Committee’s general comment No. 3, according to which States parties’ obligations to provide rehabilitation to victims of torture cannot be postponed; that the Committee, in its general comment No. 2, has considered that article 3 obligations also extend to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments (para. 6); and that suggesting that he should submit a complaint against Italy if he were to be deported to Eritrea would be deferring the State party’s responsibility towards the protection of his human rights. The Committee considers that the obligations of States parties towards the rehabilitation of victims of torture require them to ensure that their legal systems allow for such protection in situations in which, under some circumstances, deportation to another State party may raise questions under article 16. Accordingly, the Committee finds the complainant’s allegations under articles 14 and 16 admissible ratione materiae. 7.4 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication submitted under article 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Italy would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 8.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture or illtreatment upon return to Italy. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 28 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the non-refoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned 28 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, para. 43.