CAT/C/54/D/490/2012 2.6 On 4 November 2011, the complainant applied for leave to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court. That Court rejected the application and adopted a final negative decision on 12 December 2011. 2.7 On 3 November 2011, the complainant started to attend meetings at SOS-Crisis Centre, to which she had been referred by the Metsälä reception centre, owing to her anxiety.2 On 19 January 2012, the complainant had a first visit3 and on 14 February 2012, a follow-up visit with a psychiatrist.4 2.8 On 20 October 2012, the complainant gave birth to her first child. 2.9 In her submission, the complainant refers to the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights and the activities of her Office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (A/HRC/10/58) and to “2010 Human Rights Report: Democratic Republic of the Congo”, of the Department of State of the United States of America, to describe the widespread practice of sexual violence, including rape, against women in the country. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that her deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention because she has already been a victim of rape and there are substantial grounds to believe that she would be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment if returned there. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 9 July 2012, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. The Government does not have any preliminary objections as to the admissibility of the communication. As for the merits, it considers that the national authorities have fairly and thoroughly examined the complainant’s asylum request and have not been able to establish that returning the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would put 2 3 4 4 According to the report of 28 November 2011 from the SOS-Crisis Centre psychotherapist, the complainant underwent many traumatic experiences before escaping her country: she witnessed the killing of her mother, father and older sister, was forced to flee and was pursued, then later imprisoned and raped repeatedly. Her body is covered in scars from that period. Remembering is visibly exceptionally agonizing for her. The narrative of her flight seems disordered because her traumatic memories of that time are fragmented and her sense of time is blurred. The report also indicated that she has trouble sleeping and suffers from recurrent nightmares and intense mood swings, and has trouble concentrating. When recounting her traumatic experiences for the first time in the Centre, the complainant began to tremble vigorously. Physical injuries to her back and leg inflicted during her incarceration cause her continuous pain. At the time the SOS-Crisis Centre report was produced, the complainant had had five meetings in the Centre, and they were to continue. She was pregnant at the time of the visit and thus was not prescribed medication. According to the psychiatric report of 20 January 2012, the complainant appeared anxious, indifferent and gloomy, but with no psychotic symptoms or acute signs of a tendency towards self-harm. The complainant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and advised to continue attending SOS-Crisis Centre. She was pregnant at the time of the visit and thus was not prescribed medication. The report of 17 February 2012 specified that the complainant was suffering from constant flashbacks to traumatic experiences in her home country, as well as from fear, anxiety and dissociative symptoms, and was having trouble sleeping. She continued to experience difficulties in dealing with the emotional side of her experiences, which was consistent with untreated traumatic stress disorder. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. She was pregnant at the time of the visit and thus was not prescribed medication.