CAT/C/47/D/351/2008 which accused her of “information trafficking and spying”. The complainant maintained that this document showed that her fear of future persecution was real.5 On 6 September 2007, the Federal Court rejected the appeal, handing down a final decision on ODM’s rejection of the complainant’s asylum application and deportation order. The Federal Court concluded that it was not believable that the complainant should be unable to supply the least substantiated details of the nature and content of the sensitive, confidential information that she was supposed to have passed on for months to her brother. The Federal Court considered that the manner in which she was supposedly informed that she was suspected by the Intelligence Agency of passing information to the rebels appeared highly unlikely, just like the fact that a member of the Agency should have run the risk of warning her of the danger she was in rather than arresting her, or that her two brothers, who had been in exile in Rwanda for several years, should have been able, with just a phone call and in less than a day, to organize her instant flight from the country. As for the newspaper article submitted by the complainant, the Federal Court found that it had no probative value considering that a copy like the one produced could be falsified and that the type used for the article that appeared on the page of the newspaper was of a different size from that of the other articles printed on the same page. 2.7 On 29 November 2007, the Federal Court found the complainant’s appeal inadmissible on the ground that she had put forward no relevant new facts or conclusive evidence. On 1 February 2008, the complainant lodged an application for a reconsideration of ODM’s decision of 5 June 2007, which was declared inadmissible by the Federal Court on 18 March 2008 on the ground that it was manifestly time-barred. The complaint 3.1 The complainant alleges that if she were sent back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment. She points out that she was engaged in political work in the country, involving several secrets regarding the political and security situation, and she opted for exile in a foreign country, which in the eyes of the Congolese authorities placed her in the position of a “deserter”. She maintains that if returned to her country she would be in real and serious danger, since it was very likely that she would be subjected to thorough questioning and possibly to ill-treatment. 3.2 According to the complainant, the existence of such a risk of torture or ill-treatment is supported by the minutes of her hearings, the conclusions of her appeals and the evidence submitted in the course of internal proceedings, including the aforementioned newspaper article,6 a written statement by Mr. Luhulu Lunghe, which she alleges was not taken into account, and her pass, which showed that she had worked for the National Assembly. 3.3 The complainant refers to specific female reasons for escape in asylum applications, but does not substantiate this argument. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 17 February 2009, the State party submitted that the complainant had failed to establish that she would face a foreseeable, personal and real risk of torture if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It points out that the complainant has not shown that she was ever subjected to ill-treatment in the past. Moreover it suggests that the facts she alleges about the passing of secret information to her brothers, in connection with a rebel movement, lack any credence. For example, she had apparently been unable to 5 6 4 A copy of the said article was attached to the complainant’s initial complaint. See paragraph 2.6. GE.12-40233