CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 Advance unedited version sexual violence. The complainant notes that according to the Committee’s General Comment N. 1., the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, but the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. 7 3.5 Concluding, the complainant highlights that, considering the torture and detention she was subjected to in her country of origin, the objective medical evidence and the relevant country of origin information that supports her account, there are substantial grounds to believe that she would be subjected to torture and inhuman treatment if returned to the DRC. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 4 June 2021, the State party presented its comments on the admissibility of the communication. It informs the Committee that it has followed up on the Interim Measure request issued by the Committee, and refrained from returning the author to the DRC while her complaint is under consideration by the Committee. The State party requested the Committee to examine the question of admissibility separately from the merits. 4.2 The State party lists the different proceedings the author submitted in the country. Regarding the identification of the author’s particularly vulnerable position, it notes that when recording the author’s first application, the police did not tick the data box “asylum seeker in a vulnerable position” in their case management system for immigration matters, while in the author’s subsequent asylum application in 2019, it did tick the relevant box and recorded in the report that the author had been subjected to torture, rape or other serious mental, physical or sexual violence. The State party notes that the current instructions of the Immigration Service advise that the interviewers and interpreters in interviews with female asylum seekers must, in principle, be female if the interview deals with themes of genderbased violence and that the interview may be interrupted, if necessary, if a male interpreter has been arranged for a female asylum seeker without any prior knowledge of indications of vulnerability. It adds that in the current practice, a whole day interview is in principle arranged for asylum seekers with some indications of vulnerability, to ensure that there is enough time for inquiring into the matter and half-day interviews are avoided for vulnerable asylum seekers to ensure that possibly traumatised asylum seekers do not have to attend an interview many times. The State party notes that it is obvious from the current, more precise instruction that an asylum interview should have been arranged for inquiring appropriately into indications of the author’s particular vulnerability. It adds that as the information provided by the author indicates that she might no longer have any safety network in her home country, there is an additional need to examine this circumstance in more detail, which is another factor that would have supported the holding of an interview. 4.3 The State party notes that the core of the present case is the personal danger of the complainant to be subjected to torture if she were to be returned to her home country. It contends that the complainant has failed to present well-founded arguments to substantiate that she would be in personal danger of being subjected to torture if she would be returned to her home country. It adds that the author has the burden of proof and adds that the account she has presented during the asylum interviews was brief, superficial and imprecise. The State party adds that there was no information in the sources of country information about the DRC about the organisation the complainant allegedly was working for. It notes that even though she worked in the organization for two years and is an almost qualified lawyer by profession, the complainant could not give a more profound account of her work, did not provide any documentary evidence, and remained unspecific in her account about the investigation she was reportedly engaged in. The State party points out that the complainant’s statements about her arrest, rape and release, remained unspecific, and did not manage to convince the Immigration Services nor the appellate Court of the subjectivity of her account. The State party notes that therefore, the relevant authorities considered that the account of the alleged violence against the complainant and the reasons for it, i.e., her activity in the organisation, was implausible. The State party states that there was no clear information 7 6 General Comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22.