Advance unedited version (l) The State party concerned should also evaluate whether the circumstances and the methods of execution of the death penalty and the prolonged period and conditions of the person sentenced to death in death row detention53 could amount to torture or a cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for the purpose of applying the principle of “non-refoulement”;54 (m) Whether the person concerned would be deported to a State where reprisals amounting to torture have been or would be committed against him/her, members of the family or witnesses of his/her arrest and detention, such as violent and terrorist acts against them, the disappearance of those family members or witnesses, their killings or their torture; 55 (n) Whether the person concerned would be deported to a State where he/she was subjected or would run the risk of being subjected to slavery and forced labor56 or trafficking in human beings; (o) Whether the person concerned is below the age of 18 years and would be deported to a State where his fundamental child rights were previously violated and/or would be violated creating irreparable harm, such as his/her recruitment as a combatant participating directly or indirectly in hostilities57 or for providing sexual services. IX. Non-State actors 30. Equally, States parties should refrain from deporting individuals to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment at the hands of non-State entities, including groups which are unlawfully exercising actions that inflict severe pain or suffering for purposes prohibited by the Convention, and over which the receiving State has no or only partial de facto control or whose acts it is unable to prevent nor to counter their impunity. 58 X. Specific requirements for the submission of individual communications under Article 22 of the Convention and interim measures of protection A. Admissibility 31. The Committee considers that it is the responsibility of the author of a communication to provide exhaustive arguments for his/her complaint of alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention in such a way that, from the first impression (prima facie) or from subsequent submissions, if necessary, the Committee finds it relevant for consideration under article 22 53 54 55 56 57 58 Concluding observations on the combined third to fifth periodic reports of the Republic of Korea (CAT/C/KOR/CO/3-5), para. 30 b). See e.g. the Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Afghanistan (CAT/C/AFG/CO/2), para. 34; and Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Mongolia (CAT/C/MNG/CO/2), para. 22. See e.g. communications No. 473/2011, Hussein Khademi et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2014, paras. 7.4. - 7.6; Nasirov v. Kazakhstan, para. 11.9, supra fn. 33; and No. 639/2014, N.A.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 2 May 2017, paras. 7.7 - 7.11. See e.g. Tony Chahin v. Sweden, para. 9.5, supra fn. 33. See e.g. Concluding observations on the initial report of Chad (CAT/C/TCD/CO/1), para. 34. See e.g. communications No. 120/1998, S.S. Elmi v. Australia, decision adopted on 14 May 1999, paras. 6.8 - 6.9; and No. 681/2015, M.K.M. v. Australia, decision adopted on 10 May 2017, para. 8.9. 11