CAT/C/68/D/882/2018 5.8 With regard to the State party’s argument that, because the complainant has made three trips back to Chile, her fear of suffering violence or persecution lacks any credibility, the complainant submits that it was only after the first two trips (1998 and 2003) that she began to represent Mapuche communities in international organizations and that in 2008 she was accompanied by NGO representatives. She also notes that the situation in Araucanía has deteriorated alarmingly since 2009 and, for that reason, the attitude of the Chilean authorities during visits that took place more than ten years ago cannot be considered as evidence that she would not now face any risk to her safety. As for the State party’s argument that her applications for a passport, which she has not obtained, demonstrate the absence of any risk of the Chilean State issuing a warrant for her arrest, the complainant submits that, regardless of whether she is in Switzerland, Spain or Argentina, the chances of a warrant being issued for her arrest are unchanged. Finally, she also notes that her niece, following her return to Chile, was subjected to violence and arbitrary arrest 27 and that she was covered by the precautionary measures requested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The argument put forward by the State party in order to question the complainant’s credibility is therefore unpersuasive and should be rejected. 5.9 Lastly, documents in the file also show that many NGOs have consistently advised the complainant to seek asylum, but she has always felt reluctant to do so. She simply went on living her life as best she could and did not apply for asylum earlier because she had always hoped to return to Chile. Additional information from the complainant 6.1 On 4 June 2019, the complainant transmitted to the Committee a letter of support, dated 18 April 2019, signed by several members of the European Parliament, 28 and a letter of support from her sister, both addressed to the State party and emphasizing the threat that the complainant’s deportation to her country of origin would represent for her. They were transmitted to the State party the same day, for information. 6.2 On 15 July 2019, the complainant transmitted to the Committee a letter of support, dated 16 June 2019, from the Spanish trade union Confederación General del Trabajo. On 19 July 2019, this letter was transmitted to the State party, for information. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee must ascertain whether the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies, although this rule does not apply where remedy procedures exceed a reasonable length of time29 or are unlikely to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. The Committee notes that the State party has not commented on the admissibility of the complaint. The Committee has, however, ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It therefore finds the communication admissible under article 22 of the Convention and proceeds with its consideration of the merits, as the complainant’s claims under article 3 of the Convention are sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility. 27 28 29 10 On 28 April 2016, during a search, the complainant’s niece was detained on spurious charges to justify those raids on people’s homes. An application for protection of constitutional guarantees was filed on account of the lack of necessity and reasonableness of the operation and the disproportionate means used. Miguel Urbán Crespo, Estefanía Torres Martínez, Tania González Peñas, Xabier Benito Ziluaga, Ana Miranda De Lage and Marina Albiol Guzmán. Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), paras. 8.1, 8.2 and 12.2. GE.20-00012