- 119 from 10 of her neighbours in Gegetjkori confirming that the complainant had been threatened and persecuted by unknown persons who also killed her dog, leaving it in front of the door as a warning. Furthermore, counsel refers to media reports of new outbreaks between Zwiadists and government forces. Counsel also submitted Amnesty International’s “Concerns for Georgia”, dated October 1996, including information about torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners. In the letter of 1 December 1998, he submitted the complainant’s medical record dating from her arrival in 1996 and describing her experiences of being subjected to torture. 2.7 On 22 February 1999, counsel requested reopening of the case on the basis of two reports from 1997 and 1998 of the International Helsinki Federation, describing serious human rights violations in Georgia. In response to the Refugee Board’s grounds for rejection, he contended that the reports show their freedom of expression is restricted in Georgia, and that the authorities had suppressed news of the attack of the Zugditi prison and the escape of prisoners in the local media. Furthermore, although the reports do not describe the demonstration on 19 November 1993, they refer to several similar demonstrations in the periods prior to and following 19 November 1993. He also submitted that the complainant’s description of the prison conditions is consistent with the reports. On 8 March, the Refugee Board rejected the application. 2.8 In May 1999, counsel directed letters about the complainant to 18 members of the Danish Parliament, requesting that they address the Minister of the Interior and ask that the complainant be granted a residence permit for humanitarian reasons. Seven members of Parliament contacted the Minister, who in turn referred the case to the Refugee Board, which rejected the request. The complaint 3. Counsel claims that the complainant fears that if returned to Georgia, she will be arrested, tortured and killed for her participation in the Mengrel political organization the Zwiadists and in the demonstration that took place on 19 November 1993, because of her deceased husband’s participation in the Mengrel army. Counsel adds that there exists a consistent pattern of human rights violations by Georgian authorities, in particular against political opponents, who risk torture and ill-treatment in prison, and there is overwhelming reason to believe that the complainant will be subjected to torture or other inhuman treatment if returned to Georgia. State party observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its note verbale of 10 December 1999, the State party submits its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the case. The State party submits that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case for purposes of admissibility of the petition, and that the case should therefore be declared inadmissible. 4.2 The State party contends that the Refugee Board has considered all aspects of the case, taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Convention, and that no further information submitted to the Committee against Torture can reveal that the complainant risks torture if returned to Georgia. It points out that the Committee is not an appellate but a monitoring body, and that the complainant is using the Committee to obtain a renewed assessment of her case.