CEDAW/C/55/D/35/2011 an ordinary member of FNL, performing limited and subordinated tasks. As such, the Immigration Service concluded that she would not risk persecution in Burundi. 2.11 The author further submits that, on 29 September 2011, the Refugee Appeals Board confirmed the decision of the Immigration Service, 4 reiterating that the author’s activities in FNL had been of limited importance. It also noted that there was no evidence that the rape of the author had been motivated by her membership of FNL. The Board added that it was unlikely that the police inquiry in Kibenga had been made with the purpose of arresting the author. Moreover, it noted that the author’s husband had been responsible for collecting funds for FNL, which did not mean that the author herself would be persecuted as a result of his activities. While the Board did not deny that the author’s house had been hit by a grenade in May 2010, it noted that there was no evidence that the author and her husband had been the targets. Moreover, it considered that the threats and harassment suffered by the author were not of such intensity and character to justify an asylum request, concluding that the author had failed to establish that she would face a real risk of persecution upon her return to Burundi. 2.12 The author maintains that she has exhausted all domestic remedies, given that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are final. Complaint 3. The author claims that her deportation to Burundi would violate articles 1, 2 (c), 2 (d) and 3 of the Convention, given that she was raped by three men in Burundi before she fled owing to political persecution by the Burundian authorities and, as a woman, could be subjected to rape or other forms of bodily harm upon her return. 5 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its submission of 3 April 2012, the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication. It submits that, in her asylum application, the author claimed that she was an ethnic Hutu and a Protestant who was persecuted as a member of FNL. 4.2 The State party notes that the author has never been arrested or imprisoned, that her house has never been searched and that, unlike her husband, she has never held a formal position in FNL. The State party acknowledges that, in April 2010, the author’s family received threats and that, in May 2010, a grenade was thrown at the family home when the family was not present. Following the elections in July 2010, the Government of Burundi shelled the author’s home town, after which she fled. On her way to Kibenga, she was raped by three armed men. The author did not know their motives or identity. __________________ 4 5 13-43086 When a case is processed according to the “normal procedure”, an appeal against a decision by the Immigration Service to reject an application for asylum is automatically filed with the Refugee Appeals Board. The author underlines the fact that, even if the Immigration Service had doubts about her credibility, the Refugee Appeals Board accepted her rape as a fact. She also cites the 2010 annual report on Burundi by Amnesty International, in which it is stated that “levels of rape and other sexual violence against women and girls remain high”. 5/20