Advance unedited version CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 whether the persons who reportedly arrested and assaulted her were public authorities or private persons. 4.4 The State party notes that the author did not present evidence of her health status until she filed her subsequent application for international protection and adds that one of the medical statements she presented only came to the attention of the authorities when she appealed to the Administrative Court against the decision on her subsequent application. The State party notes that the complainant had an opportunity to provide evidence of her health status as early as in her first application for international protection. It recognises that victims of torture often have difficulties in describing their experiences in detail, but it considers that the alleged deficiencies in the asylum process do not suffice to explain the superficiality and un-specificity of the author’s account. The State party notes that in her submission to the Committee, the complainant does not make her account given in the asylum interview more profound or precise and does not present any new facts. It argues that the communication does not contain any well-founded argument to substantiate the alleged danger threatening the author in her home country, nor the reasons for this danger or its person-specific nature. 4.5 The State party emphasises that the domestic authorities are best placed to judge the credibility of the author and her account. It reiterates that the Committee is not a judicial or appellate body, and that it must give considerable weight to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned. The State party notes that it is not the role of the Committee to acts as a fourth instance to domestic courts, and it considers that the complainant is attempting to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of her asylum claim reassessed. The State party concludes that the communication is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure and should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention. The State party adds that it is of the view that the facts of the 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 admissibility 5.1 On 13 September 2021, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility. The complainant contends that she has sufficiently detailed the facts and the basis of her claims under article 3 of the Convention and argues that the claims are sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility. She adds that the State party fails to present any reasons for claiming that the communication would be ill-founded, and notes that the State party’s observations reaffirm that the Finnish authorities have failed to identify her particularly vulnerable position and did not consider her individual situation and credibility in a rigorous and proper manner. The complainant notes that even when the authorities recorded her vulnerable position in her asylum application on 3 June 2019, the subsequent proceedings did not take this into account in an appropriate way. 5.2 The complainant argues that the State party’s observations confirm that the asylum process has included several shortcomings, which have led to the fact that her case was not fairly and thoroughly examined. She notes that the first asylum interview lasted less than four hours and was spread over two days, while the subsequent interview by the Immigration Service was also spread over two days and lasted less than six hours. The complainant points out that in all her interviews, the interpreter was male. She highlights that the State party observes in its observations that it is obvious from the current, more precise national instructions that an asylum interview should have been arranged for inquiring appropriately into indications of the author’s particular vulnerability, including because she currently no longer has any safety network in her home country. However, the Immigration Service did not arrange a new interview when assessing her second application, and the Administrative Court did not arrange an oral hearing. 5.3 The complainant states that the State party initially recognises that there were shortcomings in the proceeding, but later contends that she has failed to present well-founded arguments to substantiate that she would be in a personal danger of being subjected to torture if she were to be returned to her home country. She notes that this is self-contradictory and does not acknowledge that the shortcomings impeded a fair and thorough examination of her case. The complainant adds that she presented information and documents about the NGO in the first appeal stage and highlights that she has provided coherent statements about her 7