4.2 The State party confirms the author's explanation of the procedure used
to exhaust domestic remedies, adding that when she filed her initial
application for asylum, the author exercised her right to do so in her own
languages. During the detailed and comprehensive initial personal interview
conducted with her by the Danish Immigration Service, an interpreter was
present at all times. It is further stated that the proceedings of the Refugee
Board include the participation of the asylum-seeker and his or her attorney
and an interpreter, as well as of a representative of the Danish Immigration
Service.
4.3 With respect to the application of article 3 of the Convention to the
merits of the case, the State party underlines that the burden is on the author
to present an arguable case, in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General
Comment on the Implementation of article 3 adopted by the Committee on
21 November 1997.
4.4 In further reference to the above-mentioned General Comment, the State
party points out that the Committee is not an appellate, quasi-judicial or
administrative body but rather a monitoring body. It is emphasized that the
communication does not contain any information that had not already been
examined extensively by the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee
Board. The State party submits that, in its view, the author is attempting to
use the Committee as an appellate body in order to obtain a new assessment
of a claim already considered by Danish immigration authorities.
4.5 In its decision of 17 February 1999 confirming the Immigration
Service's assessment of 30 October 1998, the Refugee Board found that it
was not convinced that the author had been subjected to persecution as a
consequence of political activities, prior to her departure from Ecuador, nor
that, upon return to her country of origin, the author would be at risk of
persecution, including torture.
4.6 The State party underlines that, according to the practice of the
Committee, it is decisive for the assessment of the merits of the case
whether information on conditions in the recipient country supports the
author's claim. The Committee's attention is drawn to the fact that PRE, in
which the author allegedly has had a prominent position, is not an illegal
political party as claimed by the author, but one of the largest parties in
Ecuador, whom the author was not able to identify, was Head of
Government in 1996.
4.7 The State party refers to the findings of the Refugee Board that the
author's statements regarding the alleged detentions were characterized by
some uncertainty.