M.H., an Afghan national born in 1998, fled Afghanistan with his family after one of his brothers was killed by the Taliban. They transited through different countries before entering Switzerland, where M.H. applied for asylum on 25 October 2020. He had previously stayed in Greece and Croatia, where he alleged to have experienced degrading treatment by Croatian authorities, including beatings, forced undressing, and poor living conditions. He claimed that he had not formally applied for asylum in Croatia.

On 3 March 2021, the Swiss State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) rejected M.H.'s asylum application referring to the Dublin III Regulation and determining that Croatia was responsible for examining the claim. It noted that he had requested asylum in Croatia on 29 August 2020 and did not find any grounds for assuming that Croatia's asylum and reception system presented systemic deficiencies which would expose M.H. to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The SEM noted reports of violent pushbacks at the Bosnian border but highlighted that these did not apply to the circumstances of Dublin transfers, as verified with information provided by the Swiss Embassy in Croatia, international organisations (UNHCR and IOM) and local NGOs (Centre for Peace Studies and Are You Syrious?). The SEM further held that the applicant could access legal remedies in Croatia to complain about the allegations of abuse and that the principle of non-refoulement would be observed. Thus, the SEM determined that under the Dublin III Regulation, Croatia was responsible for examining M.H.'s claim. The applicant appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, which upheld the SEM's decision on 20 July 2021. Following these decisions, he was hospitalised multiple times in Switzerland for psychological distress, including suicide attempts.

On 29 November 2021, M.H. submitted an individual communication to the Committee against Torture (CAT), alleging that his removal to Croatia would violate Articles 3 (non-refoulement in case of risk of torture), 14 (right to redress), and 16 (prevention of other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the Convention Against Torture. He alleged that the treatment he had received from the Croatian authorities amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, and at least to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 16, and that being removed would cause a deterioration in his mental health due to the loss of access to medical care he had been receiving in Switzerland.

In its reasoning, the CAT declared the claims under Articles 14 and 16 inadmissible due to insufficient motivation, but admitted the claim under Article 3, recalling that Article 3 prohibits refoulement when there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned would be subjected to a risk of torture if returned to a state. For a violation of Article 3 to be found, the risk of torture must be foreseeable, personal, present and real. The CAT recognized reports of ill-treatment at Croatia's borders, but highlighted that such practices did not necessarily apply to individuals subject to Dublin transfers, and held that the applicant had not sufficiently proven that he would not have access to an adequate asylum procedure in Croatia, or that he would face refoulement to Afghanistan. The CAT further observed that M.H.'s medical reports did not conclusively link his psychological condition (PTSD) to abuse in Croatia, and that there was no indication that he would be denied care there, as the Swiss authorities had committed to informing their Croatian counterparts of his medical needs.

In conclusion, the CAT held that M.H. had not demonstrated a real and personal risk of torture upon return to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation and found no violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In addition, the Committee requested Switzerland to inform Croatia about M.H.'s medical needs in order to facilitate the continuity of his medical treatment upon arrival in Croatia.