CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 Advance unedited version activities and past persecution from the beginning of the procedure. She adds that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture and that the inconsistencies in her presentation of the facts do not raise doubts about the general veracity of her claims, especially since it has been demonstrated that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. The complainant notes that she submitted statements about her health situation during the first appeal stage, even if the Immigration Service had not asked the complainant for a doctor’s statement or other evidence concerning her health at any stage of the asylum process. She recalls that the Finnish Aliens Act and asylum procedures directive of the European Union have stated that when applicants have been identified as applicants in need of special procedural guarantees, the authorities have to ensure that the applicants are provided with adequate support, including when such a need becomes apparent at a later stage of the procedure.8 The complainant further recalls the problems with the recordings of her interviews and with the performance of the interpreter. 5.4 The complainant refers to the State party’s argument that the domestic authorities are best placed to judge her credibility and notes that while the Committee gives considerable weight to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party, it is not bound by such finding and instead has the power to carry out a free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstance in every case. She reiterates that the State party fails to fully acknowledge the several shortcomings in the national procedure and especially that the authorities failed to recognise her vulnerability as a victim of severe sexual violence and torture, which affected the entirety of the investigation in her case. The complainant reiterates that the country-of-origin information clearly supports her claims and the contention that she has a real risk of being subjected again to torture in the DRC. She concludes that her deportation to her country of origin would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on the merits of the communication 6.1 On 4 October 2021, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. Regarding the first asylum proceeding, the State party restates the facts as presented by the author, and specifies that in its decision of 28 June 2017, the Immigration Service accepted the author’s logical account of her citizenship and place of residence as an established fact and examined her application for international protection in the DRC. The Service held that the author had not been subjected to acts considered as persecution and that she would not be at risk of such acts neither. It noted that the complainant is a lawyer by education and an educated woman capable of work and free from illnesses, considered to have a safety network in her home country, which implies that no reasons had appeared for issuing her with a residence permit on a discretionary basis on humanitarian ground. The Service determined that the author could be returned to the DRC. 6.2 Referring to the decision of the Eastern Finland Administrative Court, the State party observes that in her appeal, the author had invoked her traumatisation, which had affected her answers in the interview and her ability to remember details. It acknowledges that the author enclosed two patient records and a medical statement according to which she had been diagnosed with PTSD and medium-level depression, stating that she suffered from fears, panic attacks and problems with memory and concentration. The patient records showed that the complainant had been treated in a ward twice because of severe depression and suicidality. The State party notes that in its decision of 14 January 2019, the Court repeated that the considered the complainant’s account implausible, as the documents presented related to the NGO had a low level of plausibility andconfirmed that the author’s account of her detention, the time in prison and the release remained superficial and impersonal and showed many implausible features. It concluded that the author would not be of any particular interest to the authorities in her home country and could not be granted asylum. The Court held that the PTSD could be treated in mental health service in the DRC and took into consideration that the author had a safety network, including her siblings and other relatives, which implied that denying her a residence permit would not be manifestly unreasonable. It decided that it was justiciable for the Immigration Service to reject the complainant’s 8 8 EU Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC, 29 April 2004, article 24.