CAT/C/54/D/490/2012 her at serious risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.2 In outlining the facts of the case, the State party described the procedure that the complainant went through at the national level, and national and international law relevant to the decision made by the national authorities. It noted that the complainant’s application for asylum was submitted to the police on the day of her arrival to Finland. In her application, the complainant indicated that she had become a political prisoner of FARDC and that, owing to her political profile, FARDC troops would violate her rights again if she returned to the country. The complainant submitted a medical report dated 2 June 2010, according to which her scars, symptoms and anxiety were compatible with her report on the incidents that caused her injuries. 4.3 On 28 September 2010, the Finnish Immigration Service rejected the complainant’s request for asylum, refused to issue her with a residence permit and decided to return her to her home country. The Immigration Service based its decision, inter alia, on the fact that it was impossible to establish the author’s identity or her travel route to Finland. The Immigration Service also noted that, according to the complainant’s own statement, she had not participated in political or religious activities in her home country. She did not report any problems connected to her work with Lisanga Boboto. Regarding the medical report of 2 June 2010, the Immigration Service noted that although the author’s injuries are not inconsistent with her statement, they could have been caused in a different manner. Therefore, the injuries do not substantiate the account of the facts that led to her seeking asylum. The Immigration Service found that, according to the complainant’s own statement, she did not have a political profile that would result in a risk of her rights being violated if she returned to her home country. The Immigration Service did not establish any other grounds on which the complainant could be at risk of persecution in her home country in terms of refugee protection. It also found the complainant not to be in need of humanitarian protection because of the security situation in her country, as no acute security risk existed in Kinshasa, her place of residence. 4.4 The complainant appealed the decision of the Immigration Service before the Administrative Court. In its submission of 21 February 2011 to the Administrative Court, the Immigration Service stated that because the complainant’s entire account of the incidents in Dongo was not credible, it could not be presumed that the soldiers were aware of her political opinion or that she was arrested and assaulted on political grounds. On 20 September 2011, the Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s appeal. In its reasoning, the Administrative Court described the complainant’s statement and information about her country. The Court held that the credibility of the complainant’s statement was undermined by the fact that, when examining the available country reports, neither the Court nor the Immigration Service found any indication of armed conflict between FARDC and ALC in the Dongo region in March 2009. The author has not reported any violations of her rights because of her activities in Lisanga Boboto. She stated that she was only a supporter, not a member, of MLC and had received her MLC membership card when travelling to Dongo. The MLC T-shirt and MLC scarf were distributed to the public and she wore them without any political motivation. The Court did not find that the complainant was in need of asylum, humanitarian protection or protection on compassionate grounds, that the Congolese authorities would be particularly interested in her because of her political profile or that the situation in her country was so unsafe as to make her return impossible. 4.5 On 12 December 2011, the Supreme Administrative Court refused the complainant’s request for leave to appeal. 4.6 Regarding the evidence of the complainant’s health submitted to the Committee, the State party submits that only one medical report, that of 2 June 2010, had been previously 5