Committee declared inadmissible ratione materiae the claim that the complainant’s removal would expose him to possible ill-treatment in Bangladesh, in violation of articles 2 and 16 of the Convention, and observed that the scope of the non-refoulement obligation in article 3 does not extend to situations of ill-treatment envisaged in article 16. It also considered that the complainant had not sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, that his prompt removal from Sweden, despite mental health problems, violated article 16 of the Convention; in this respect, it considered that the aggravation of an individual’s physical or mental health through deportation is generally insufficient to amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of this provision, and that the complainant had failed to demonstrate that appropriate medical care was unavailable in Bangladesh. 258. In its decisions on complaints Nos. 187/2001 (Thabti v. Tunisia), 188/2001 (Abdelli v. Tunisia) and 189/2001 (Ltaief v. Tunisia), the Committee considered that the State party’s failure to investigate the complainants’ detailed torture allegations made before the judicial authorities, in connection with their trials for participation in an attempted coup d’état or support of an illegal organization, amounted to a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. It emphasized that the obligation, in article 13, promptly and impartially to examine such allegations, including by a medical examination immediately following allegations of abuse, is not subject to the formal lodging of a complaint of torture under national procedures or an express statement of intent to that effect. It suffices for the alleged victim simply to bring the facts to the attention of the State party. 259. At its thirty-second session, the Committee declared one complaint admissible, to be considered on the merits, and declared inadmissible complaints Nos. 202/2002 (H.J. v. Denmark), 225/2003 (R.S. v. Denmark), 229/2003 (H.S.V. v. Sweden) and 243/2004 (S.A. v. Sweden). 260. Also at its thirty-second session, the Committee adopted decisions on the merits in respect of complaints Nos. 135/1999 (S.G. v. The Netherlands), 148/1999 (A.K. v. Australia), 182/2001 (A.I. v. Switzerland), 183/2001 (B.S.S. v. Canada), 196/2002 (M.A.M. v. Sweden) and 214/2002 (M.A.K. v. Germany). The text of these decisions is reproduced in annex VII to the present report. 261. In its decisions on complaints Nos. 135/1999 (S.G. v. The Netherlands), 148/1999 (A.K. v. Australia), 182/2001 (A.I. v. Switzerland) and 196/2002 (M.A.M. v. Sweden), the Committee considered that the complainants had failed to demonstrate that they would run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon return to their countries of origin. The Committee therefore concluded, in each case, that the removal of the complainants to those countries would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 262. In its decision on complaint No. 183/2001 (B.S.S. v. Canada), the Committee found that the complainant’s deportation to India, 13 years after he had allegedly been tortured by the Punjabi police, would not violate article 3 of the Convention, given that the evidence submitted by the complainant exclusively referred to his risk of being tortured in Punjab. It considered that the complainant had failed to substantiate that he would be unable to lead a life free of torture in another part of India and argued that, although resettlement outside Punjab would constitute a hardship for the complainant, the mere fact that he may not be able to return to his family and his home village would not as such amount to torture within the meaning of articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee declared inadmissible the complainant’s claim that his forcible 94