Advance unedited version CAT/C/56/D/61312014 State party's observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 8 August 2014, the State party informed the Committee that it did not wish to challerlge the admissibility of the complaint. 4.2 On· 18 February 2015, theState party provided its observations On the merits. As to the facts of the case, the State party points out that ~he date on whiéh.. the complainant entered. the Netherlands is unknown; Emd that on 20 October 2003 she submitted an asylum application pursuant tosection 28 of the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000). According to the State party, she based her application for asylum on the forced marriage to her stepgrandmother's brother. After a fITst interview, on 20 October 2003 the complainant was informed that the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs would initiate an investigatiOll in Guinea to verify her statements'. She had a second interview to give her an opportunity to e1aborate on her asylum application. The interviews were carried out in Fula and French langllages with the help of an interpreter. The complainant could also make written substantive changes and!or additions to the reports of the interviews. 4.3 On 12 March 2004 a person--specific report (individueel ambtsbericht) was issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since the complainant stateci that she lived near a small restaurant called 'Feu Rouge' in the Petit Simbaya neighborhood of Conakry from, the age of three (1990) until her departure, the investigàtion carried out in Guinea, included' this neighborhood, where it was found a restaurant!nightclub called 'Feu Rouge'. However, neighborhood residents did. not recognize the complainant· from her passport photograph. Likewise, no neighborhood residents or representatives of the local authorities knew the people the complainant claimed Were her relatives, i.e. her step grandmother, Ms. F.D, the complainant's husband Mr. M.S.D. and his fITst wife Ms. M.B. and their adopted child M.B. Furtherfnore, not a single house was found in the vicinity of restaurant 'Feu Rouge' where the complainant 'could have 1lved. The information that the complainant provided about her school tumed out to. be incorrect as weIl. She stated that shehad attended the Ba~onga .School in the Simbaya Cosa neighborhood from 1994 to 2001. ACéording to the person--speciflc report, the primary school called Bantonka (not Batonga) in Simbaya Cosa in Conakry closed in 1989. The building that originally housed the school has been used as a police station since then. No one living in that area recognized thecomplainant from her, passport photograph. The State party further notes that the complainant was unable to provide evidence to successfully refute the fmdings set out in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' person--specific report. On 22 November 2005, the complainant was notified ofthe authorities' intent to deny. her asylum application, and given au opportunity to provide comments, which she did by letter of 16 December 2005. On 23 December 2005, her asylum application was rejected by the IND since the authorities gave no credence to her assertion that she was forced tümarryher step grandmother's brother. Nor didit consider her statements about her family circumstances credible. 4.4 On 17 July 2006, the Hague district court, sitting in 's--Hertogenbosch, stated that decided that the restrictions that had been placed on the complainant' s access to the documents on which the person--spe<?ific report was based were justified pursuant to section 8 :29, subsection 3 of the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht, AWB). The State party points out that·this decision was made by a different· judge from the one who on 27 June 2007 declared unfounded the complainant's application for judicial review. The State party maintains that the complainant did not lodge an appeal against the district court' s jud.gment with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State). 4.5 On 13 August 2008, the complainantsubmitted a new asylum application pursuant to section 28 of the Aliens Act 2000, :which was fmally dismissed by the Administràtive JurisdictionDivision ofthe Council of State on 28 January 2010. The State party points out 5 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl