CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 Advance unedited version making the decision. The Committee also takes note that the State party recognises that in the absence of a medical statement, the assessment of her vulnerable position remained deficient when the first decision was made, as it assessed the complainant’s education background and safety network, but could not take into account her real health status. The Committee further notes that the State party confirms that based on the current, more precise instructions, an asylum interview should have been arranged for inquiring appropriately into indications of the author’s particular vulnerability. 9.7 Having taken account of the arguments presented by the parties, the Committee considers that the complainant has submitted sufficient elements to suggest that she would be at risk of being subjected to treatment that violates article 1 of the Convention if she were returned to the DRC. This is based primarily on the claim that the complainant was subjected to sexual violence, torture, arbitrary detention and harassment due to her work for a human rights organisation. The Committee recalls that victims of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder can suffer from various symptoms, which may affect their ability to disclose all relevant details or to relay a consistent story throughout the proceedings.14 The Committee observes that the complainant’s credibility was questioned based on inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements during the asylum interviews, and recalls that complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture and that in order to provide victims of torture with an effective remedy, State parties should refrain from following a standard credibility assessment process to determine the validity of a non-refoulement claim.15 The Committee recalls that the inconsistencies in the complainant’s 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.16 The Committee recalls that the State party should provide the person concerned with fundamental guarantees and safeguards, especially if the person has been deprived of the person’s liberty or is in a particularly vulnerable situation, such as a woman who has been subjected to violence.17 The Committee has stated that these safeguards should include linguistic, legal and medical assistance and that an examination by a qualified medical doctor, including as requested by the complainant to prove the torture that the complainant has suffered, should always be ensured, regardless of the authorities’ assessment of the credibility of the allegation.18 The Committee takes note of the fact that the State party has acknowledged that certain shortcomings in the proceedings could have had an impact on the risk assessment and the determination of the credibility of the complainant’s account, and suggests that under the current legislative framework and instructions of the Finnish Immigration Service, the assessment of the complainant’s case possibly would have had a different outcome. Accordingly, the Committee considers that while the State party has raised concerns about the credibility and plausibility of the complainant’s account, it drew an adverse conclusion concerning credibility without exploring a fundamental aspect of the complainant’s claim.19 9.8 The Committee has previously voiced its concern about reports that the practice of rape in custody is endemic, particularly where women have been detained on account of their participation, direct or indirect, in some form of political opposition or human rights defence activities.20 The Committee equally takes note that the ongoing sexual violence against women has been documented by several UN mechanisms and entities.21 The Committee is of 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 14 General Comment No. 4 (2017), para. 42. Idem. E.K.W. v. Finland (CAT/C/54/D/490/2012), para. 9.6. General Comment No. 4 (2017), on the implementation of article 3 on the Convention in the context of article 22, CAT/C/GC/4, 4 September 2018, para. 40. Idem, para. 41. M.B. et al v. Denmark (CAT/C/59/D/634/2014), par. 9.6. CAT/C/COD/CO/2, par. 32. See for example: Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Democratic Republic of the Congo: High Commissioner Update, 30 March 2023, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2023/03/democratic-republic-congo-highcommissioner-update. ; BNUDH, Rapport sur la torture et autres peines ou traitement cruels, inhumains ou dégradants en République démocratique du Congo, October 2022, para. 56. ; A/HRC/48/47, 15 July 2021; OHCHR, “Bachelet says new Government has ‘window of opportunity’ after peaceful political