CAT/C/37/D/227/2003 Page 9 4.12 The State party notes that the complainant resumed his political activities in December 1997 after being allegedly released from custody in August 1997. Furthermore, after his second detention in June 1999, the complainant made no attempt to leave the country but stayed there until December 2000, with the exception of a visit to India in August and September 2000. The State party suggests that this indicates that not even the complainant believed himself to be in danger of being arrested and tortured even at that time. The State party questions the fact that the complainant, allegedly arrested by the police and accused of possessing illegal weapons and subversive activities in August 1997 and in June 1999, would have no difficulty in obtaining a passport from the authorities in August 2000. 4.13 On the claim under article 16, the State party refers to two cases in which there was medical evidence of PTSD and a claim that state of health prevented expulsion. In G.R.B. v Sweden,5 the Committee considered that an aggravation of state of health possibly caused by deportation did not rise to the threshold of treatment proscribed by article 16, attributable to the State party, while in S.V. v Canada,6 the Committee considered the claim insufficiently substantiated.7 4.14 The State party acknowledges that according to the medical evidence the complainant suffers from PTSD and his health has deteriorated during consideration of his asylum application. It considers, however, that there is no substantial basis for his fear of returning to Bangladesh. The State party notes that in March and April 2001, the complainant applied for an exception from the requirement to have a work permit, since he had been offered a job. After the decision of the Aliens Appeals Board in July 2002, the complainant has remained in hiding. When he was discovered by the police, he was working as a greengrocer. Thus, the State party submits, the complainant’s psychiatric condition should be assessed in that light and has not been of such seriousness that it prevented him from working. In addition, in enforcing the expulsion order, the State party ensures that it is carried out in a humane and dignified manner, taking into account the complainant’s state of health. The State party, therefore, contends that the possible aggravation of the complainant’s state of health that his deportation may cause would not amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by article 16 of the Convention, attributable to the State party. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 18 July 2003, the complainant maintained that his communication fulfils the minimum standard of substantiation for the purposes of admissibility of a claim under article 3. He also contends that the communication fulfils the minimum criteria of article 16 and that the execution of the expulsion order would be in violation of this article by the Swedish authorities. Despite his poor mental health, he was taken into custody and the speedy manner 5 Supra n.4, para 6.7. Reference is made to S.V. v Canada, Communication No 49/1996, Views adopted on 15 May 2001, para 9.9. 7 The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on equivalent provisions that have held that ill-treatment must rise to a minimum level of severity, and that there is a high threshold where the case does not concern the State party's responsibility for infliction of harm. See, Cruz Varas and others v. Sweden, judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, para 83 and the Bensaid v. the United Kingdom judgment of 6 February 2001, para 40. 6