CAT/C/47/D/347/2008
assess the authenticity of the evidence. On 19 August 2005, the Federal Office for
Migration decided that, in the absence of any new facts or evidence, and since the copy of
Le Courrier d’Afrique submitted to the authorities had been forged, there were no grounds
for examining the complainant’s application for reconsideration.
2.7
On 12 September 2005, the complainant appealed against the latest decision of the
Federal Office for Migration, arguing that she had provided firm evidence of the threats she
faced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To support her appeal, she produced new
evidence, including a summons served on her mother and a letter addressed to the
complainant by her mother. On the basis that the appeal seemed unlikely to succeed, on 1
November 2005 the Asylum Appeals Commission’s investigating judge refused to order
interim measures and set a deadline for payment of the estimated procedural fees. The
complainant challenged this decision on 11 November 2005 and stood by the authenticity
of the documents she had submitted, to which she added a summons addressed to her on 10
October 2001. On 18 November 2005, the judge rejected the complainant’s request, noting
the lack of authenticity of the summons, which had, moreover, not been mentioned earlier
in the proceedings.
2.8
In its decision of 31 March 2008, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the
complainant’s appeal on the grounds that she had not introduced any new facts or evidence,
and stressed the lack of credibility of her claims and the evidence presented. It considered
that the two summonses submitted by the complainant had very little evidentiary value,
noting that they had been presented in 2005, almost five years after the alleged events.
2.9
On 18 July 2008, the Court again dismissed the complainant’s appeal on the grounds
that she had not made the advance payment for the procedural fees.
2.10 The complainant maintains before the Committee that her application for asylum is
well founded and that she fears being arrested, tortured and raped if she returns to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. She says that, if she returned to her country, she would
immediately be imprisoned and that she is afraid of being raped in prison, being exposed to
serious illnesses and being subjected to forced labour. She adds that her mother has also
received threats and has had to leave Kinshasa. She no longer has any relatives in Kinshasa
and would therefore not receive any material or moral support, whereas in Switzerland she
has built a social network, has accommodation, is covered by health insurance and receives
welfare. In her letter of 21 August 2008, the complainant reiterated that she was suffering
from depression, for which she was receiving medical treatment.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that her deportation from Switzerland to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo would be a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as there are
substantial grounds for believing that she would be in danger of being subjected to torture if
returned.
State party’s observations on the merits
4.1
On 22 January 2009, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the
communication. It states that the complainant has failed to establish that she would face a
personal, real and foreseeable risk of torture upon her return to the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. While noting the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the
4
GE.12-40160