Advance unedited version CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 though she had a male lawyer assigned to her, she had been alone in the interviews and did not receive help from her lawyer to submit medical evidence before the first appeal. On 8 May 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the request for interim measures. However, on 30 June 2020, it issued an interlocutory decision to stop the deportation. Eventually, on 30 November 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the application for leave to appeal and the order for return became enforceable. 2.14 The complainant argues that the case should be declared admissible as the matter is not being and has not been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement and given the fact that she has exhausted all domestic remedies. 2.15 Regarding the human rights situation in DRC, the complainant refers to a report by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees issued in the context of the Universal Periodic Review of the DRC3 according to which the justice system in the DRC suffers considerably from a lack of independence, is faced with problems regarding impartiality and separation of powers and has inadequate human and financial resources to ensure its effective functioning, which deprives victims of avenues to seek justice and obtain remedies for violations. The complainant equally refers to a report of the US State Department of 20174, which notes that the most significant human rights problems in the DRC included unlawful killings; torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment; and sexual and genderbased violence, including rape and abductions. Complaint 3.1 The complainant contends that her forcible return to the DRC would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as there are substantial grounds to believe that there is a real, personal and imminent risk that she would be subjected to torture again upon her return to the country. 3.2 The complainant notes that her applications for international protection have been rejected based solely on credibility issues, even though her accounts have been constant, coherent and plausible throughout the process. The complainant adds that as a young, female lawyer and human rights activist, she falls into a category of people that are targeted in the DRC. She iterates that she is a traumatised victim of torture, which is supported by medical documents, which could have affected the way in which she presented the information and recounted her experiences. 3.3 The complainant claims that her statements are further substantiated by the relevant country of origin information, which demonstrates that there is a challenging human rights situation in the DRC, where violence against women, in particular rape and gang rape committed by men with guns and civilians, remains a serious concern, including in areas not affected by armed conflict. The complainant refers to jurisprudence of the Committee5, which stated that the Committee was not able to identify a particular area in DRC that could be considered safe for the complainant and stated that violence against women, including rape by national armed groups, security and defence forces is taking place in conflict-affected and rural areas, but is also occurring in other parts of the country. 3.4 The complainant contends that the Finnish authorities have failed to consider and acknowledge her personal situation in the light of the country-of-origin information when assessing her risk. She adds that the assessment was flawed and argues that the burden of proof was determined in an erroneous manner, as it should shift from the applicant to the State when the applicant has previously suffered serious harm of torture prior to the departure from the country of origin.6 The complainant stresses that the human rights situation in the DRC has not improved, and human rights violations are continuing. She points out that civil society members are one of the targeted groups and adds that especially women suffer from 3 4 5 6 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Submission on Democratic Republic of the Congo: 33rd UPR Session, May 2019, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5ccabdd87.html. United States Department of State, 2016 Country reports on Human Rights Practices – Democratic Republic of the Congo, 3 March 2017. E.K.W. v. Finland (CAT/C/54/D/490/2012); Balikosa v. Sweden (CAT/C/44/D/322/2007). The Complainant refers to EU Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC, 29 April 2004, article 4 (4). 5