Advance unedited version CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 the view that the challenging context in the country and the particularly vulnerable situation of the complainant, a young female lawyer working on human rights who was priorly subjected to rape and detention for reasons linked to her work and is suffering from PTSD, should have caught the attention of the State party and constitute sufficient grounds for investigating the alleged risks more thoroughly.22 9.9 On the basis of all the information submitted to it, and taking into account the human rights situation in the country, including the widespread violence against women and the endemic practice of rape in custody, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has provided sufficient evidence and an arguable case for it to consider that a possible foreseeable consequence of her forced return to the DRC would be that she would be exposed to a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being subjected to torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee considers that the State party has not sufficiently considered the particularly vulnerable situation of the complainant, did not provide her with the necessary safeguards, and did not adequately assess the medical statements related to the torture she was submitted to and failed to sufficiently investigate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that she would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to her country of origin. 23 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, considers that the return of H.U. to the DRC would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention by the State party. 11. The Committee is of the view that the State party is required by article 3 of the Convention to re-asses the complainant’s asylum application, taking into account her particularly vulnerable situation and providing her with the necessary safeguards, in the light of its obligations under the Convention and the present findings. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the complainant while her asylum application is being reassessed. 12. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations. 22 23 transition”, 29 January 2020, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/01/dr-congobachelet-says-new-government-has-window-opportunity-after-peaceful . See also: Report of the team of international experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, A/HRC/51/60, 18 August 2022. See: Nijimbere v. Sweden (CAT/C/75/D/984/2020), para. 7.8. See M.B. et al v. Denmark (CAT/C/59/D/634/2014), par. 9.8. 15