Advance unedited version CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 if the risk of torture stems from a non-governmental entity and occurs without the consent or acquiescence of the government, the issue falls outside of the scope of the Convention. The State party recalls that the Committee has held that there have to be substantial grounds for believing that the applicant is facing a foreseeable, personal, present and real riskof being subjected to torture, that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not constitute a sufficient reason for determining that a person would be at risk, and that the burden of proof falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case. The State party further refers to the practice of the Human Rights Committee and to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. 6.10 Concluding, the State party reiterates that the complainant has failed to present wellfounded arguments to substantiate that she would be in personal danger of being subjected to torture if she were returned to her home country. It stresses that the complainant has the burden of proof and that the alleged deficiencies in the asylum process do not suffice to explain the superficiality and un-specificity of her account. The State party contends that the communication is manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 22(2) of the Convention and adds that the facts of the present communication before the Committee do not reveal any breach of article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication 7.1 On 19 October 2022, the complainant provided comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication. She contends that the State party clearly reaffirms in its observations that the complainant’s asylum procedure has included several shortcomings and that it failed to identify her particularly vulnerable position as a severely traumatized victim of torture. She contends that this has caused that her vulnerability and special needs have not been examined and considered appropriately during the proceedings. The complainant adds that the authorities have neglected their obligation to investigate all relevant facts of the case and did not organise a new asylum interview nor oral hearing in the Courts, despite the evidence presented by her about the torture she had experienced. She adds that PTSD does not only limit the ability to talk about torture or sexual violence, but has an overall impact on the victim, which often is unable to give detailed accounts of the grounds for asylum. 7.2 The complainant highlights that the State party admits that a medical statement should have been requested in the first asylum process before making the decision, as this would have probably influenced the general conclusions on the author’s account and the plausibility thereof. She adds that the State party admits that in the absence of this medical statement, her real health status could not be taken into account and the assessment of her vulnerable position remained deficient. The complainant contends that in practice, the Finnish authorities have failed in the credibility and risk assessment, which was based on serious shortcomings in the asylum process. She further recalls that in all the interviews, the interpreter and lawyers were male and notes that the State party’s reference to new instructions, which were not followed in her case, implies that the State party admits the shortcomings. The complainant notes that the State party recognises that the recording of her asylum interviews was lost and adds that she felt like the lack of clear understanding between her and the interpreter during the interviews made it even more difficult for her to provide more details about her account in the interviews. She states that the refusal of the Finnish authorities to hear her in the appeal procedure and to arrange an oral hearing, implies that the overall credibility of her account should not have been disputed in the way it has been done by the State party in its observations sent to the Committee. The complainant further highlights that the State party acknowledges that based on the current more precise instructions of the Immigration Service, an asylum interview should have been arranged for inquiring appropriately into indications of her particular vulnerability. 7.3 The complainant argues that the case law invoked by the State party supports the complainant’s position instead of the State party’s claims and refers to the fact that the Committee has recalled that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture and that inconsistencies in the complainant’s presentation of the facts do not raise 11