- 143 - Petitioner’s comments on the State party’s submission 6.1 In response to the State party, the petitioner reaffirms his claim that he faces a substantial risk of torture in Somalia because, as a member of the minority Shikal clan, he is particularly vulnerable in the lawless conditions prevailing in the whole of Somalia. He says that the RRT accepted that he was vulnerable but rejected his claim as there was no nexus between the danger he faced and his clan membership. He submits that no such nexus is required under the Convention against Torture. 6.2 In dealing with acts of torture from so-called “non-State actors” or “quasi-State actors”, it is submitted that the Committee should adopt a broad conception of the reach of State responsibility. In this regard, the petitioner points to the jurisprudence on the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not necessary, according to counsel, that the persons carrying out the acts of torture be somehow “charged with” or “authorized” by some competent organ. Article 1 of the Convention against Torture extends liability for acts of torture to include “acquiescence” of the responsible person. Furthermore, counsel argues that, as recognized in Elmi v. Australia, where there has been a breakdown of government authority, private groups practicing torture are in effect “acting in an official capacity” in the area in question and article 3 relief should therefore be available. 6.3 According to the petitioner, recent peace initiatives have not ended the conflict in Somalia. In its most recent report on the situation of human rights in Somalia, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights noted that Mogadishu remains divided into fiefdoms controlled by the Transitional National Government and a variety of faction leaders. He noted that inter-faction clashes often lead to civilian casualties and loss of property, and observed that there is a sense of lawlessness prevailing in the city. He claims that, as a member of a vulnerable clan, he would be particularly at risk in this climate. Even if he were forcibly returned to the north-east, as has been suggested by the State party, he would have to pass through Mogadishu and thereby be placed at risk. 6.4 Finally, the petitioner adds that he cannot be forcibly returned to Galkayo in any event, as the material before the RRT showed that forcible returnees are not accepted in that part of Somalia. In any event, his membership of the Shikal clan leaves him just as vulnerable in the north-east because, as the report to the Commission on Human Rights also noted, there continues to be serious fighting in north-eastern Somalia, particularly around Galkayo. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. In this respect the Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under 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. The Committee also notes that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not contested by the State party. It further notes the State party’s view that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae on the basis that the Convention is not applicable to the facts alleged, since the treatment the petitioner may or may not suffer if he were returned to Somalia does not foreseeably or necessarily amount