CAT/C/71/D/790/2016
detail the course and modes of the meetings with the sisters and brothers in the church, as
well as the meaning of the faith for her. By contrast, the Committee notes that neither the
decision of the State Secretariat for Migration nor the State party’s observations refer to any
specific elements in the complainant’s answers that allegedly affected the credibility of her
religious beliefs. The Committee also notes that the testimony of W affirms that the
complainant is a Christian. Given the circumstances, the Committee is satisfied that the
complainant has sufficiently substantiated her account of her adherence to Christianity.
10.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that it is not plausible that the
police would have searched for the complainant at a residence of a brother in the church,
which was used as a church, in the village of N without arresting him, even though they were
accompanied by L’s husband, who knew that L and the complainant often met at that home.
The Committee notes that, in the transcript of the hearing before the State Secretariat for
Migration, the complainant stated that the Chinese authorities did not arrest the brother in the
church, owing to lack of proof against him. The complainant also stated that the Chinese
authorities had no proof against her either and that they were unaware of her real identity.
The Committee considers that the complainant has not effectively justified the existence of
the abovementioned risk in the absence of proof against her at that point in time.
10.6 However, the Committee notes that, on appeal, the complainant submitted testimony
from W, according to which the son of L’s husband obtained the complainant’s family home
address, upon which he took the police there, where the complainant’s mother was told by
the police that the complainant should surrender herself as soon as possible. The complainant
adds that the police found pictures of her at the residence and stated that those who preached
the gospel were regarded as criminals. From that testimony, it can be concluded that the
police were looking for the complainant, therefore the Committee cannot agree with the State
party’s observation that the testimony provides no basis for concluding that she had problems
with the authorities. Taking note of the State party’s observation that the testimony is
inconsistent with the complainant’s statement that she presented herself to the family under
an alias, the Committee finds that the State party has not explained in what way the use of an
alias means that L’s family could not have found out about the complainant’s address, in
particular given that, according to the transcript of the hearing before the State Secretariat for
Migration, the complainant visited their residence often and had introduced herself to L’s
husband, who was therefore aware of her appearance. In the absence of further doubts
concerning the trustworthiness of W’s testimony raised by the State party, the Committee
finds that due weight should be given to the complainant’s account of the police search, visit
to the residence and threat to her mother relating to the complainant’s religious activities and
preaching.
10.7 The Committee takes note that the State party argues that it is illogical that the
complainant would have been able to obtain a passport and use it to freely leave China if she
was wanted by the Chinese authorities. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s
argument that the Chinese authorities had no basis in domestic law for preventing her
departure from the country. It further takes note of the State party’s reference to one of the
submitted professors’ statements, according to which procuring a passport is possible if the
person concerned has never had their details checked at a border crossing or has provided an
alias during a check and profited from a delay in the registration of his or her fingerprints.
The cited professor also points out that there is a high level of corruption among Chinese
officials, which facilitates the procurement of passports, and that airport officials rarely check
names and never check fingerprints. The Committee notes that the complainant states having
availed herself of an alias and that she received help from third parties in procuring the
documents, which is consistent with the abovementioned information. The Committee
considers that the inconsistencies observed by the State party about the exact role of Z do not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that the complainant’s account of the procurement of a
passport is not credible. The Committee therefore finds that due weight should be given to
the complainant’s statement.
10.8 The Committee notes that the State party has not disputed the increasing incidence of
persecution of Christians in China, as noted by the complainant. The Committee recalls its
concern about the consistent reports that members of various groups, including religious
minority groups, continue to be charged, or threatened to be charged, with broadly defined
9