CAT/C/44/D/322/2007 Sweden. Given that the Government has no power to influence decisions on expulsion cases, as this lies exclusively with the migration authorities, the Migration Board was asked to respond to the Committee’s request. The Board maintains its view that there is currently no foreseeable risk that the complainants would be subjected to violence upon return to the DRC. It submits that the complainants have not sufficiently substantiated that they risk torture in Gemena, Equateur, which is not in a conflict area. They would have access to a social network, as it is the town where Ms. Njamba grew up. It is a large town safe enough to live there without ending up in a camp for Internally Displaced Persons. Several humanitarian organisations are stationed there because of the stable security situation. Living in a large town also reduces the risk of abuse compared with rural areas. The Migration Board reiterates that it adopted a guidance note (para. 8.4) in November 2008, regarding the situation in the DRC and how it affected the examination of asylum claims there. It suggests that if the complainant’s had been from such a conflict zone, they may have been entitled to a residence permit upon re-examination of their application if internal relocation would not have been possible. Indeed, it submits that if the complainants believe that they meet the criteria in this guidance note or that the situation in the DRC, especially in their home province, has changed significantly so that there are impediments to the enforcement of their decisions on expulsion, it remains open to them to request a reexamination of their application by the Board under chapter 12, section 19 of the Aliens Act. 9.2 As to whether, given the information in the reports in question, enforced deportation would constitute a violation of article 3, the State party reiterates earlier arguments and supports the views expressed by the Migration Board. It emphasizes that the complainants would not be returned to Goma, where they claim that they will risk being killed in revenge for the activities allegedly carried out by their husband/father, but to the Equateur province. The reports in question largely relate to the eastern parts of the DRC and are thus irrelevant. They confirm that there has been no armed conflict in Equateur for many years. Although the State party acknowledges that there is information in these reports that sexual violence occurs in Equateur too, especially in the form of abuse by the police and the military as a form of revenge against rebellious villages, it is clear that women in rural areas and small villages are more exposed to violence that women in towns. Women who are IDPs are also more exposed to violence than women with a permanent abode. In this context, the State party refers to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, in S.M. v. Sweden 13 , which indicates that even though the reports of violence against women are alarming, an individual assessment must be made of each case and the complainants’ personal situation must determine his or her risk of being subjected to violence or torture on return. In the State party’s view, the information in the reports is not sufficient to establish that the complainants upon return to the DRC would face a forseeable, real and personal risk of abuse – sexual or otherwise. In addition, the State party reiterates that there are strong reasons to question the veracity of the new allegations presented by the complainants, United Nations High Commissioner on the situation of human rights and the activities of her Office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, A/HRC/10/58, 2 April 2009; Twenty-ninth report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, S/2009/472, 18 September 2009; Report of the SecretaryGeneral pursuant to Security Council resolution 1820, S/2009/362, 15 July 2009. 13 Application no. 47683/08, 10 February 2009. “As concerns the general situation in the DRC, the Court is aware of the occurrence of reports of continuous, serious human rights violations, in particular, against women, in that country. However, it has to establish whether the applicant’s personal situation was such that her return contravened Article 3 of the Convention.” 11