CAT/C/68/D/863/2018 Complainant’s comments on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In comments dated 21 November 2018, the complainant reiterates her arguments, and emphasizes that during domestic proceedings, the State party’s authorities never contested the contents of the report of the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment. Rather, the Council of State based its assessment on the finding that the complainant’s account was wholly lacking in credibility. The State party’s attempt to discount the Institute’s findings, by asserting that the inconsistencies in the complainant’s narrative related not to mere details but to the “essence” of her account, is an academic discussion. 5.2 Until 2010, the Aliens Act provided that a temporary asylum residence permit could be issued due to compelling humanitarian concerns connected to the reasons for leaving the country of origin. On 1 January 2014, this policy was abolished because the provision was rarely used (it accounted for only 4 per cent of asylum residence permits.) Any victims of torture or cruel treatment could receive international protection under the revised law (art. 29), which offers protection to aliens who have been confronted with traumatic experiences in their country of origin. The rationale of this policy is that aliens should not have to confront individuals who have violated their human rights with impunity. The complainant should be granted international protection under this provision. The State party’s authorities are aware of her fears, but have refused to grant her protection. The fear and anxiety that she experiences at the prospect of leaving the Netherlands aggravate her existing mental health issues, which resulted from torture. Thus, the State party’s insistence that the complainant leave its territory constitutes a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 5.3 The complainant reiterates that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Regarding the State party’s argument that the complainant could have applied for a stay of removal under section 64 of the Aliens Act 2000, the complainant asserts that she does not meet the eligibility criteria for doing so. Section 64 requires that a medical emergency situation arise within three months after deportation. Severe psychological problems, anxiety and grief would not be considered in this analysis. However, the complainant is receiving medical treatment from a psychologist and psychiatrist due to post-traumatic stress disorder. 5.4 While the human rights situation in Côte d’Ivoire has improved, perpetrators of previous human rights violations have gone unpunished. Although the State party argues that the complainant did not provide any identity or travel documents, the State party’s authorities appear to have accepted that she is a national of Côte d’Ivoire, because they granted her a temporary residence permit on the basis of her Ivorian nationality. A victim of torture cannot be expected to make consistent statements, and cannot be blamed for inconsistencies caused by trauma and mental health problems. State party’s further observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 In further observations dated 22 January 2019, the State party reiterates its argument regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies with respect to the complainant’s claim of inability to return to Côte d’Ivoire due to her medical condition. Section 64 of the Aliens Act 2000 allows for non-removal in special cases where individuals are advised against travelling due to the health effects of trauma. Thus, this remedy is not ineffective, contrary to the complainant’s claims. 6.2 The State party reiterates its claims regarding the absence of a need to conduct a medical examination of the complainant at various stages of domestic proceedings. Moreover, during the interview on 27 January 2014 and in her letter dated 13 February 2014, the complainant expressly stated that she wanted the Government to take a decision on the withdrawal of her residence permit as soon as possible, without waiting for the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment to issue its report. The State party finds it remarkable that the complainant is now criticizing its authorities for not having waited for the issuance of the report when it decided to withdraw her residence permit. The State party reiterates its arguments concerning the content of the report, and concerning the complainant’s contradictory statements regarding essential elements of her account. 8