CAT/C/45/D/344/2008 of the Aného commune, the body had been brought to the mortuary on 15 November 2005. An autopsy had been carried out on the day the complainant’s uncle located the body, i.e., 7 February 2006. Upon examination, the body had been found to be covered in wounds and bruises. It had also been established that the deceased’s head had been crushed. The complainant’s father was buried on 11 February 2006. 2.6 By decision of 19 February 2007, the Swiss Federal Office for Migration (ODM) rejected the complainant’s application for asylum. It found the complainant’s account to be implausible, and set his removal for 18 April 2007. On 23 February 2007, the complainant filed an appeal with the Federal Administrative Tribunal (TAF), requesting annulment of the Federal Office’s decision, the granting of asylum and, as an ancillary measure, temporary admission. On 8 June 2007, the complainant filed an additional submission. On 12 December 2007, the Tribunal rejected his appeal. On 17 January 2008, the complainant filed an application for review of the judgement of 12 December 2007, but on 30 January 2008 the Tribunal ruled the application inadmissible. 2.7 In additional submissions dated 17 November and 9 December 2008, counsel informed the Committee that by decision of 27 October 2008, the Etablissement vaudois d’accueil des migrants (EVAM) (Vaud Department for the Reception of Immigrants) had allocated accommodation to the complainant in the collective emergency support centre in Vennes, in the canton of Vaud. The complainant challenged this decision on the grounds that the support centre in question was an emergency centre that received only rejected asylum-seekers who fell under the special “emergency assistance” procedure. This procedure was allegedly introduced by the authorities in the State party with the aim of inducing the most recalcitrant asylum-seekers to leave Swiss territory for lack of prospects. In this support centre, the complainant no longer enjoyed basic necessities and found himself in a communal environment which was noisy and makeshift, which was guarded round the clock by the administration police responsible for deportations, and which was consequently hostile. By decision of 11 November 2008, EVAM rejected the complainant’s challenge and upheld the decision of 27 October 2008 to place him in the Vennes support centre. The complainant appealed on 25 November 2008. The complaint 3.1 The complainant submits that his deportation to Togo would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture. As a witness to the acts committed during the night of 27 to 28 February 2005, he would be in danger in his own country, as confirmed by his father’s dramatic death. He considers that he would run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Togo. Moreover, he claims that the emergency assistance procedure consisting of minimum assistance coupled with surveillance by the Swiss administration police pending removal violates article 22 of the Convention. 3.2 Under article 3, the complainant notes that the Swiss authorities have not challenged the authenticity of the documents he submitted, which, contrary to the assessment made by TAF, confirm the credibility of his account, the circumstances surrounding his father’s death and the risks he would personally run in the event of his return to Togo. The complainant highlights the fact that the archives of the UFC website cite the Togolese Human Rights League as referring on 28 February 2005 to at least four bodies being fished out of Bé lagoon, including that of a 12-year-old child. 3.3 The complainant stresses that all international stakeholders have denounced the abuses carried out by Togolese law enforcement personnel during the 2005 presidential elections. He recalls that the Committee itself, in its report on Togo dated 28 July 2006, said it was “concerned by allegations received, in particular following the April 2005 elections, of the widespread practice of torture, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and secret detentions”. The Committee also criticized “the lack of impartial inquiries to 4 GE.10-46944