CAT/C/71/D/790/2016 7.2 In response to the State party’s assertion of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant affirms that the requirement to lodge a new asylum application to argue on the same grounds appears unjustified. She states that the State party may at any moment open a new asylum procedure on its own initiative. She notes that it is inevitable that she submits new proof in a procedure that has lasted almost three years, and that those elements prove her public political engagement for religious freedom in China and are in line with her religious beliefs and activities, which have formed the basis of her claim throughout the procedure. The complainant underlines that she does not argue the existence of a new risk and that acceptance of the State party’s arguments on that point would allow States parties to avoid decisions on the merits in a great number of cases. The complainant affirms that she has been and still is exposed to risk because of her activities and position in the religious community. She adds that the Swiss authorities have neglected to examine her claim with the necessary rigor, the Federal Administrative Court, sitting as the sole judge, having declared her appeal inadmissible. 7.3 As for the credibility of her claim, the complainant argues that the State party in its observations does not question her religious beliefs or her membership of the Church of the Almighty God. She asserts that the Swiss authorities should have examined whether her claim is capable of establishing a prohibition of refoulement. According to the complainant, the State party’s declaration that L’s arrest did not happen for religious reasons is not substantiated. in addition, her explanations on that point during the hearing were clear and detailed. The complainant submits that her response during the hearing does not exclude that the Chinese authorities are aware of her identity and her religious convictions or that there are at least suspicions in that regard. L’s husband knows her personally and could therefore identify her without knowing her real identity. Her statement that “there was no evidence against me. They were not very sure whether I was Christian or not, because, in China, the Christian religion is practised discretely”, was to explain why the police did not arrest her brother in the church while they were looking for the complainant. 7.4 As to the State party’s observations on her passport and visa, the complainant notes that the exit of Chinese nationals from China is regulated by article 12 of the Administrative Law on Entry and Exit and that none of the conditions in that law applied to her when she left China. The Chinese authorities could therefore not have prevented her exit from the country. The complainant adds that she did not take the steps necessary to obtain the passport and visa herself. The minor contradictions raised by the Swiss authorities in that regard are of little importance. She submits that it cannot be excluded that the Chinese authorities became aware of her identity, religious beliefs and her membership of a domestic church when she went into hiding. 7.5 Concerning the proof submitted, the complainant refutes the State party’s observation that she did not mention her membership of the Church of the Almighty God in the domestic procedure; she did so in her appeal to the Federal Administrative Court. She asserts that the fact that the Court did not acknowledge her membership in its incidental decision of 23 March 2016 shows the superficial character of its examination. She asserts that W’s testimony confirms her membership of the domestic church in China, that it does not contradict her own statements and that it cannot be excluded that W’s family learned of her real identity and communicated it to the police. She contests the State party’s refusal to consider the statements from the three professors on the grounds that she stated during the hearing that she was not a member of a sect or religious group, noting that that only reflected her own perception. She asserts that the statements are relevant to the examination of her individual situation in the light of her claim. 7.6 With regard to the State party’s observation that there is no consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in China, the complainant states that it is irrelevant that there is no war, civil war or generalized violence in China, because she never invoked such a risk. However, the State party does not pronounce itself on the situation of domestic churches in China, while the violations of their members’ human rights are systematic, grave, flagrant and massive, and she has submitted ample information in that regard. Religious freedom is highly limited in China, and the Chinese authorities use measures of constraint and sanctions against unregistered religious groups. Numerous Christian groups are prohibited by law, and their members are exposed to detention and 5