4.9On the reasons why the complainant contends that he is in danger of being tortured if he is returned to Costa Rica, the State party points out that his participation in peasant disputes over land took place quite some time ago. It quotes human rights reports which show that the situation has improved since 1999. 4.10The State party further argues that, according to the complainant himself, the most serious incident, namely, when he was shot, took place in 1995. The State party points out, however, that the complainant left Costa Rica only in May 1997. He left the country legally, and apparently without difficulty. This would suggest that he had no need of urgent protection even in 1997. 4.11The State party asserts that the complainant has not demonstrated the risk of persecution by the Costa Rican authorities, and that in any case, if it were considered that the complainant risks persecution today, it would be from organizations with which he has been in conflict for various reasons. The State party asserts, however, that persecution of this nature does not fall within the purview of the Convention.c It adds that there is nothing to indicate that Costa Rica is unable to furnish adequate protection to the complainant should he be the object of such persecution. Costa Rica has furthermore ratified the Convention and made the declaration under article 22; the complainant would therefore be able to enjoy the protection provided by the Convention in his country of origin. Comments by the complainant concerning the State party’s arguments 5.1In a written submission dated 25 November 2002, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations, referring to facts not appearing in the initial complaint, and putting forward new allegations which similarly did not appear in his initial submission. On the issue of the general situation of human rights in Costa Rica, the complainant quotes a press release issued by the Popular Vanguard Party of Costa Rica on 18 October 2002 denouncing acts of political persecution of its leaders by agents of the State. He also quotes a document written by himself, which can be found on his web site, about the human rights situation in Costa Rica. 5.2The complainant quotes the opinion of the Centro de Investigación y Promoción para América Central de Derechos Humanos (CIPAC/DDHH) (Human Rights Research and Promotion Centre for Central America), on the discrimination to which homosexuals in Costa Rica are subject, the violence against them and the fact that they cannot contract same-sex marriages. 5.3Referring to the personal risk of torture he would incur if he were returned to Costa Rica, the complainant bases his fears on the alleged lack of effective means of protection on the part of government institutions. Those same institutions did not protect him before or after the torture to which he was subjected, and his complaints to the courts about members of the police force were not examined. 5.4On the issue of the circumstances in which the complainant was shot in 1995, he repeats that it was an attempted murder, without commenting on the contradiction alleged by the State party. 5.5On the issue of the circumstances under which he left Costa Rica, the complainant says that he remained in the country until 1997 in order to exhaust all domestic remedies. He reiterates that he was in danger at the time and for that purpose had installed a metal stockade in his house and that he moved from region to region within the country in order to protect himself. 5.6As regards the asylum procedure engaged in Sweden, the complainant contends that at the hearing of 26 July 2000 he was not allowed to hand over the documents he wished to submit since they were in Spanish, that the immigration official and the defence lawyer assigned to him treated him in a rude and hostile way, that the hearing was “a put-up job and manipulated from beginning to end”, and that the transcript of his statement by the official was inaccurate and omitted certain facts of which he had informed her. He further claims that in the course of one year and eight months he had access to his lawyer for just 2 hours and 15 minutes. He also contends that the State’s refusal to consider his case adequately is an act of discrimination. 5.7The complainant says that he is currently continuing his political activities from abroad, since he has a web site on which he records complaints; for this reason his safety is still at risk. Additional submission by the complainant 6.On 23 September 2003, the complainant made an additional submission, containing, inter alia, a psychiatric report dated 14 September 1998 and issued by D.E.P., a Toronto-based psychiatrist, who confirms that the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, 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 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 State party acknowledges that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.2As regards the complainant’s additional submission of 23 September 2003, the Committee notes that this submission was lodged after the end of the six-week deadline, stipulated in the Committee’s letter of 21 October 2001, in accordance with rule 109, paragraph 6, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, in which the complainant was invited to submit his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits of the complaint by 29 November 2002. The Committee thus considers that the fresh arguments raised in the complainant’s additional submission of 23 September 2003 were lodged out of time and cannot therefore be considered by the Committee. 7.3The Committee sees no further obstacles to the admissibility of the complaint and therefore proceeds to a consideration of the merits.