CAT/C/62/D/722/2015 country could safely relocate to other parts of the country, including Kinshasa. That position was further upheld in M.M.R. v. the Netherlands.11 In the absence of a general risk, the complainant also failed to prove that he faced individual threats and that he would be of sufficient interest to the authorities. The State party recalls the findings of the Committee in M.D.T. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/48/D/382/2009), in which it stated that the complainant had not shown that he was still a wanted person in his country. 12 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 The complainant, responding to the State party’s observations, submitted that he does not have legal knowledge and does not speak Norwegian. The complainant believes, however, that the State party authorities mishandled his asylum application. The State party relies on the 2007 report by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which “lacks independence, authenticity and conclusiveness in arriving at sensitive conclusions in cases where life is involved”. That report was written not to show the real situation in the country, but to achieve a solution for dealing with asylum seekers in Norway. 5.2 The report was “compiled in 15 days” and it is not known what areas in the country were covered by the drafters. It may not contain information from informal sources regarding “extrajudicial killings” in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The report was written in 2007, several years before the events of 2011, and the situation on the ground could have changed significantly. 5.3 The Directorate of Immigration arrived at the conclusion that the complainant could reside in Kinshasa. That conclusion overlooks the fact that the complainant does not have relatives or any other network in Kinshasa, putting him at risk of “the government authorities and informal criminal gangs” which operate in Kinshasa with impunity. 5.4 The State party claims that the complainant is not a “high-profile critic of the regime”. The complainant submits, however, that “most reports from international organizations” show an increase in the number of extrajudicial killings of “low-profile” critics of the regime and the majority of those deaths are not reported. 5.5 The argument that the complainant could return to Kinshasa raises a number of “fundamental questions”. The complainant is concerned, for example, as to how he will be treated at the airport and whether the authorities will try to verify where he has been, why he was absent, etc. Kinshasa is located 2,000 kilometres from the complainant’s hometown of Bukavu and the complainant submits that he does not speak the language spoken in Kinshasa. If returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the security services would have “about a 99 per cent possibility” of identifying, arresting and subjecting him to torture, since they would consider him to be a former rebel returning from Europe. 5.6 The complainant also submits that there were no issues regarding his identity, as opposed to the claim of the Norwegian authorities. In June 2014, the authorities applied for a passport on his behalf, to be able to deport him and a passport was issued to him by the Consulate of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Denmark. 5.7 Furthermore, regarding his handling of weapons, he had not disclosed it immediately, because he was afraid that the authorities would consider him a “dangerous person”, reducing his chances of receiving asylum. The complainant admits that he received free legal advice until his application was rejected by the Immigration Appeals Board. He did not have any money since he did not have a work permit. He asked some friends for help and with their help he was able to hire a lawyer, who could provide services only to cover the requests to reverse the 2013 decision rejecting his claim for asylum. He did not have money to hire a lawyer to file an appeal in court. The complainant claims that he was not given any information about that legal recourse. The information provided on the website of the Immigration Appeals Board states that the decisions of the Board are 11 12 6 Application No. 64047/10. The State party also refers to A.M. v. France, communication No. 302/2006, decision adopted on 5 May 2010.