Advance unedited version CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 aid office was appointed to handle her case, but it is unclear to the complainant what he did in the case as they spoke only once by phone. 2.7 On 28 June 2017, the FIS rejected the complainant’s asylum application and ordered her return to the DRC. The Service accepted the complainant’s statements regarding her nationality and place of origin. It noted that it could not find information about the NGO in the available country of origin information but did not exclude the existence of the organization in view of the limited nature of the available sources. The FIS considered that the complainant’s statements regarding the NGO she has worked for about two years had been brief, superficial and imprecise, that the complainant did not present any documentary evidence of her employment with the NGO nor information about how organisation works or about her real involvement in the investigation or the organization as such. The Immigration Service did not accept as a fact that the complainant had worked for the NGO. Though it noted that the complainant’s account on the threatening messages she had received were coherent, it did not accept this information as a fact, given its previous conclusion about the complainant’s work for the NGO. Regarding the complainant’s capture and rape, the FIS considered that her statements lacked subjectivity, and were mechanical and repetitive, despite requests for clarification. The FIS did not accept as a fact that the complainant was apprehended, assaulted and raped in the manner that she described. Regarding the complainant’s account of her release, the Immigration Service reached a similar conclusion, based on the supposed vagueness of the information provided and the lack of details. It also stated that it was implausible that an unknown person that initially planned to rape her, would have refrained from the act and subsequently released her from prison and helped her escape the country, just because of the fact that they shared a last name. It determined that the complainant’s account of her release and the journey arranged for her was not credible. In conclusion, the FIS did not accept the complainant’s accounts of her work and the threats related to it, nor the contention that she was captured and raped and determined that the complainant would not face any risk from the authorities if she would be returned to the DRC. 2.8 On 14 January 2019, the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland rejected her appeal and a request for an oral hearing. The complainant was represented by an attorney and provided documents regarding the existence of the NGO as well as a health certificate attesting a severe depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociative auditory hallucinations, insomnia, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and somatic symptoms. The Court considered the complainant’s statements to be broad and repetitive, including due to the manner in which she presented information about the NGO and her work therein. The Court questioned the documents related to the NGO and did not accept that the complainant worked for it. It also questioned the complainant’s account regarding the threats she had received as well as the allegations related to her capture and rape. The Court concluded that the complainant’s statements about the threat she faces in her country of origin were implausible in their entirety and stated that she could not be considered as being of interest to the authorities upon her return. The complainant requested leave to appeal and an interim measure to halt the enforcement of the deportation decision to the Supreme Administrative Court. The complainant referred to her medical condition, invoked the fact that the traumatic experiences affected her capacity to explain her case in detail in an asylum interview and referred to the principle of the benefit of the doubt that she should be rewarded. The Court rejected the appeal on 11 April 2019. 2.9 The complainant notes that during these different proceedings of her first asylum application, several procedural shortcomings impacted the decisions of the competent authorities. She argues that the Immigration Service, in spite of the information provided by her, did not ask for evidence related to her health at any stage of the process and failed to recognize her vulnerability as a victim of severe sexual violence and torture and the impact that this could have on her ability to provide a detailed and precise account of her case. Moreover, the complainant was not accompanied by legal counsel at any of the asylum interviews, which were arranged in a way that did not support her ability to provide a clear overview of the reasons for her request for asylum. The complainant highlights that the interviews were organized shortly after her arrival, were rather short, and the interpreter was male. Moreover, the Immigration Service had lost the recording of the first interviews held in 2016, the recording of the interview in 2017 was incomplete and demonstrates that the interpreter did not diligently comply with his task. The complainant stresses that even though 3