CAT/C/68/D/863/2018 3.3 Sexual violence in Côte d’Ivoire is rarely prosecuted and punished. When prosecution of rape occurs, offenders usually face the lesser charge of sexual assault. Hardly anyone has been tried and convicted for human rights abuses committed before or during the civil war, with the exception of abuses that occurred in the context of postelection violence in 2010 and 2011. Because of the mental and physical health problems the complainant experiences as a result of the harm she endured, it would not be reasonable or humane to expect her to request protection from the authorities in Côte d’Ivoire. 3.4 The complainant resides unlawfully in the Netherlands, and has no employment, home, income, or medical insurance. Apart from emergency treatment, she is not entitled to medical care. She needs a safe place to stay, proper medical care and a stable situation. She should be freed from the constant fear of being removed to Côte d’Ivoire. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 19 September 2018, the State party does not contest the admissibility of the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention. It considers that to the extent that the complainant raises a claim under article 16 of the Convention, this implied claim is inadmissible because it is unsubstantiated and because the complainant did not exhaust domestic remedies. Insofar as the complainant argues that she cannot return to Côte d’Ivoire because of her medical condition, she never requested application of section 64 of the Aliens Act 2000. When this type of request is made, the authorities assess whether the alien is medically fit to travel, or whether there is a real risk that the alien’s rights under article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) would be violated due to the alien’s medical situation. 4.2 The communication is without merit. During the complainant’s asylum procedure, due care was taken to consider article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The complainant had the opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of her account through oral statements, as she was unable to produce documents for this purpose. The complainant was interviewed several times during her asylum application procedures, with the assistance of an interpreter. She was questioned on the facts and circumstances of her departure from Côte d’Ivoire. A legal representative and a staff member of the Dutch Council for Refugees were present during those interviews. The complainant also had the opportunity to submit corrections and additions to the reports of these interviews, and to respond to the notifications of intent to deny her asylum applications. The asylum procedure, with the necessary safeguards, thus offered the complainant sufficient opportunities to satisfactorily establish the veracity of her account. The District Court and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division carefully assessed her claims. 4.3 Although the human rights situation in Côte d’Ivoire is a cause for concern, it does not establish that the complainant faces a personal and present risk of harm there. Moreover, the situation there has drastically improved since the complainant left in 2009. At that time, Laurent Gbagbo was in power. In 2011, he was arrested and was transferred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In 2011, Mr. Ouattara became President of Côte d’Ivoire, and he remains in power. Thus, while the complainant claims to have experienced problems as a result of her husband’s activities on behalf of Mr. Ouattara’s party, it does not stand to reason that she would continue to face such problems if she returned to the country. 4.4 The complainant’s account is not credible. She has not submitted any documents to establish her nationality, identity or travel route, or to demonstrate the veracity of her account. She did not provide detailed, coherent and verifiable statements regarding her journey. For example, she did not specify the airline she flew with from Côte d’Ivoire, or the airport and country in which she arrived. It is reasonable to expect her to be able to provide this basic information. Moreover, on a large number of points relating to the essence of her account, she has provided odd, vague, cursory and contradictory statements. For example, during her second interview, on 28 October 2009, the complainant was unable to provide any information about the party that her husband served, or the activities he performed for the party, except for her statement that he organized meetings and handed out 5