CAT/C/64/D/742/2016
and would be obliged to sleep on the streets, with no means to cover his basic needs, and
that he would have no access to medical health care. The complainant did not have access
to any information on how to file an asylum application and nobody asked him to provide
information about his health.
2.12 On 14 October 2016, the complainant decided to return to Switzerland and on 20
October 2016 he filed a new asylum application. He noted that he was a victim of torture in
need of specialized medical care, which he could not receive in Italy. He attached a medical
report to his application.3 It was stated in the medical report that the complainant had been
treated for 12 months once or twice a week by the specialized trauma clinic in Geneva, that
he was severely traumatized by the acts of torture and ill-treatment he had suffered in
Eritrea and that he had severe post-traumatic stress disorder with a pronounced tendency to
isolate himself. It also reiterated that the complainant needed the support of his brother,
with whom he had a close and dependant relationship and that if the complainant were
deprived of the specialized treatment for victims of torture or a stable social environment,
he could fall into a depression, with a high probability that he could commit suicide.
Drafted after 12 months of therapy and thanks to the close therapeutic relationship built
between the doctors and the complainant, the report provides a detailed account of his story
in Eritrea and of the acts of torture he suffered.
2.13 On 28 November 2016, the State Secretariat submitted a standard form to the Italian
authorities to request that they take back the complainant. The form did not include any
information about his particular needs.
2.14 On 22 December 2016, in the absence of a response from the Italian authorities, the
State Secretariat decided to deport the complainant to Italy in accordance with the Dublin
III Regulation. On 24 January 2017, the Federal Administrative Tribunal rejected the
complainant’s appeal. The Court considered that, in spite of the medical report, the
complainant was not dependant. It further considered that it had not been proven that the
complainant was critically ill or appeared to be close to death and could not be guaranteed
any nursing or medical care in the country of deportation.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that his forced return to Italy would violate his rights under
articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention. He submits that, if returned to Italy, he would be
exposed to a situation amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and deprived of
any opportunity for rehabilitation.
3.2
He claims that Italy is no longer able to meet the needs of asylum seekers or to
ensure access to basic services, such as shelter and essential medical care. This is
particularly true for victims of torture, who have specific medical needs. According to the
complainant, he would not have access to a real asylum application procedure in Italy. This
situation would leave him with no reasonable choice but to seek protection elsewhere,
exposing him to a risk of chain refoulement to his home country.
3.3
The complainant notes that, given the current migration influx, the Italian authorities
cannot guarantee adequate reception and accommodation conditions to preserve their
dignity. The complainant submits that the decision of the European Council 4 to relocate a
3
4
4
Medical report dated 14 December 2016, submitted by the complainant to the State Secretariat for
Migration on 16 December 2016. The report is attached to the additional information submitted by the
complainant on 2 February 2017.
See Council Decision 1523/2015 of 14 September 2015, paras. 13–14: “Due to the ongoing instability
and conflicts in the immediate neighbourhood of Italy and Greece, it is very likely that a significant
and increased pressure will continue to be put on their migration and asylum systems, with a
significant portion of the migrants who may be in need of international protection. This demonstrates
the critical need to show solidarity towards Italy and Greece and to complement the actions taken so
far to support them with provisional measures in the area of asylum and migration. At the same time,
Italy and Greece should provide structural solutions to address exceptional pressures on their asylum
and migration systems. The measures laid down in this Decision should therefore go hand in hand
with the establishment by Italy and by Greece of a solid and strategic framework for responding to the
crisis situation and intensifying the ongoing reform process in these areas. In this respect, Italy and