CAT/C/54/D/490/2012 As a result, the complainant’s referral to a psychiatrist and to the Centre for Torture Survivors has been delayed, despite her efforts.6 5.3 As for the State party’s observation on the security situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the complainant submitted that the State party failed to present any supporting information in that regard. The complainant referred to the Committee’s findings in the case of Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden,7 in which it concluded that it was impossible to identify particular areas in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that could be considered safe for the complainants. 5.4 Regarding the alleged contradictions concerning her political participation in MLC and her allegations about the interpretation problems, the complainant emphasized that she is a traumatized person and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, in which it has considered that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture.8 5.5 The complainant referred to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, and provided information to support the claim that she would be in danger of being subjected to torture were she to be expelled. According to the criteria listed in paragraph 8 of the general comment, the complainant submitted that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo there are serious human rights violations; that no area could be considered safe for her, as a woman who is a traumatized victim of torture; that she has been imprisoned, continuously mistreated and tortured by FARDC soldiers; that she presented medical evidence supporting her claim of the mental and physical damage she had suffered; that she worked with the non-governmental organization Lisanga Boboto, which cooperates with a bigger non-governmental organization, La voix des sans-voix pour les droits de l’homme; and that she was a member of MLC, the second-largest opposition party in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, attending party meetings and being active in the party. Additional submission from the complainant 6. On 2 July 2014, the complainant submitted to the Committee reports by three medical specialists of the Centre for Torture Survivors: one by a psychiatric specialist dated 29 August 2013, one by a physical therapist dated 17 April 2013 and a medical case summary by a specialist in neurology/psychotherapist dated 7 March 2013. The reports indicate that the complainant suffers from symptoms of major depressive disorder. According to the reports, the findings are concurrent with the torture methods described by the complainant and she is in need of long-term physical and psychological treatment. The complainant stated that these and previous medical reports clearly support her claims that she has been victimized through rape and other forms of torture and ill-treatment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. According to the complainant, taking into account the situation in her country of origin, there are substantial grounds for believing that she would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to the 6 7 8 The complainant presented a medical report of 9 July 2012 from a general practitioner. The report describes the complainant’s physical ailments, stating that she is experiencing clear sciatic symptoms on her right side, which has led to a mild palsy in her right leg. It notes that the complainant had appointments at SOS-Crisis Centre before her pregnancy but not after the baby was born. The report emphasizes that a visit, for example to the Centre for Torture Survivors, would be particularly beneficial to the complainant. See communication No. 322/2007, Eveline Njamba and her daughter Kathy Balikosa v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.5. See also communication No. 379/2009, Sylvie BakatuBia v. Sweden, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 10.7. Communication No. 43/1996, Tala v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 November 1996, para. 10.3. 7