CAT/C/71/D/790/2016
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in China, noting that
there is no war, civil war or generalized violence on the whole of the territory. Moreover, the
complainant does not state that she has been subject to torture or other mistreatment; she
affirmed the opposite during the hearing before the State Secretariat for Migration.
Furthermore, as for her political activities in Switzerland, the State party does not consider,
independently of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, that those activities have
necessarily attracted the attention of the Chinese authorities.
6.3
The State party refers to the entirety of the domestic decisions and observes that the
complainant’s affirmations lack credibility and contain factual inconsistencies. It refers to the
reasoning in the decisions of the domestic authorities, i.e. that her allegations are not credible
and do not lead to the conclusion that there are serious reasons to believe that she would be
exposed to torture in China. Specifically, the State party notes that it has not been established
that L’s arrest happened for religious reasons. It is furthermore not credible that the
complainant has been or is being searched for, given that the Chinese authorities are unaware
of her real identity and it is not plausible that the police searched for her at the residence of a
brother in the church in the village of N without arresting the latter, especially because the
police officers were accompanied by L’s husband, who knew that L and the complainant
often saw each other there. The State party notes that the complainant mentioned only a single
policeman who conducted the search before the national authorities, but that there were two
policemen according to her complaint.
6.4
The State party observes that it is illogical that, despite the police search, the
complainant successfully obtained a passport and visa and left the country by airplane, i.e.
through a highly controlled route. She did not offer a plausible explanation in that regard.
According to one of the three professors’ statements, that is only possible if the person
concerned has never had their details checked at a border crossing or has provided an alias
during such a check and has profited from a delay in the registration of his or her fingerprints.
The State party notes that, during the asylum hearing, the complainant stated that she had
obtained her passport through an intermediary named Z, whereas the complaint now states
that her brother in the church personally led her to the competent authority and that Z only
intervened for the Schengen visa application at the Embassy of Switzerland in China.
6.5
As for the proof submitted to the Committee, the State party notes that the medical
documents concern the complainant’s illness suffered in the third quarter of 2016, rather than
her claim. The attestation from the Church of the Almighty God was drawn up on 2
November 2016, well after the alleged facts, and only establishes that the complainant has
participated in activities in Switzerland. She never mentioned her membership in the
procedure before the national authorities. The statements on her religious beliefs have
remained vague and barely substantiated. W’s testimony was prepared after the decision of
the State Secretariat for Migration and does not establish that the complainant had problems
with the Chinese authorities. In addition, the affirmation in the testimony that the son of L’s
husband was able to procure the complainant’s family home address in China does not
correspond to the complainant’s declarations that she had presented herself to that family
under an alias and that her real identity was therefore unknown. Furthermore, the declarations
from the professors contain no information on the individual situation of the complainant,
who moreover affirmed that she is not a member of a sect or religious group. The State party
concludes that, from the file before it, it cannot be concluded that the complainant is being
searched for by the Chinese authorities; her claim relies only on the comments of third parties
and, the complainant does not present new elements capable of calling into question the
national decisions or rendering credible the existence of a foreseeable, personal, present and
real risk of being subjected to torture in case of her return to China.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional observations on admissibility
and observations on the merits
7.1
On 4 November 2019, the complainant provided her comments on the State party’s
observations. She reiterates that the European Court of Human Rights has not examined the
same question, having declared her application inadmissible because she invoked the wrong
convention.
4