CAT/C/68/D/882/2018 had scars compatible with the wounds made by rubber bullets and the results of blows and cuts with blades, and who had also endured a traumatic amputation of the fifth toe of her right foot, was experiencing chronic post-traumatic stress and depression, with a combination of physical injuries and psychological disorders forming a clinical pattern typical of that exhibited by victims of organized violence. The Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève also noted that Waikilaf Cadin Calfunao was in a state of post-traumatic stress and that the complainant’s mother, Mercedes Paillalef Moraga, was extremely worried about the complainant’s return to Chile. The situation has been acknowledged by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, which, on 26 October 2015, requested that Chile adopt precautionary measures for the protection of the complainant’s sister and six other members of her family (see para. 2.9). On 23 May 2016, the Commission requested the extension of those measures to three other members of the family. 14 Chile has not acted on these recommendations or taken any protective measures, allowing further ill-treatment to take place. 3.7 The complainant also points out that both State forces and landowners are responsible for the ill-treatment. Landowners, for example, have repeatedly set fire to the houses of community members; such actions even led to the death of one of the complainant’s uncles, Basilio Coñuenao.15 The many incidents already noted (see para. 2.9) include a series of death threats made in April 2015, when the family was threatened at night by individuals shouting that the house was going to be burned down and that everyone inside was going to die. These threats were repeated twice in the same year; the police, however, refused to register the family’s complaints. In addition, in April 2016, men wearing helmets and bulletproof vests broke into their house; a few days later, they poisoned their dog, which died. These threats from private individuals are ongoing. 3.8 The complainant also notes that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, her ethnic background is a factor to be taken into account, 16 as are her role and responsibilities in a movement opposing the Chilean authorities and her involvement in activities for the promotion and protection of human rights, which are bound to attract considerable attention from the authorities. 17 In addition, the complainant points out that the Committee also considers, in its jurisprudence, whether politically sensitive activities have been carried out in the host country,18 as is her case. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 19 February 2019, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint, arguing that nothing suggests that there are substantial grounds for fearing that the complainant would face a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of torture or illtreatment if she were returned to Chile. The State party therefore asks the Committee to find that the deportation of the complainant to Chile would not constitute a violation of its international obligations under article 3 of the Convention. It also submits that, since 1996, the complainant has returned to Chile in 1998, 2003 and 2008 and that she filed an asylum application only with a view to protecting her niece. 4.2 The State party refers to general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, in which it is stated that the author of a communication must show that he or she faces a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of being subjected to torture in the event of deportation to his or her country of origin, that there must be substantial grounds for believing there is such a risk and that the allegations must be based on credible evidence. The State party also refers to the information that the Committee should take into account to conclude that there is such a risk, as set out in paragraph 49 of general comment No. 4. 14 15 16 17 18 6 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, resolution 33/2016 of 23 May 2016, precautionary measures No. 46/14. Court’s internal number (RIT) 2359-2004, Unique complaint number (RUC) 04000228316-1, fire and death of Basilio Coñuenao, case dismissed. Mutombo v. Switzerland (CAT/C/12/D/13/1993), para. 9.4. Faragollah et al. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/47/D/381/2009), para. 9.6; and Jahani v. Switzerland (CAT/C/46/D/357/2008), para. 9.6. Eftekhary v. Norway (CAT/C/47/D/312/2007), para. 7.7. GE.20-00012