CAT/C/51/D/429/2010 herself. Although she was never a Tamil Tiger, her nephew was a prominent Tamil Tiger militant. He was killed in 1999 and the complainant organized his funeral and surrounding events in the town of Vanni, which was then under the control of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The complainant’s nephew was declared a “martyr” and numerous Tamil Tigers came to the event. The funeral was widely advertised, including through distribution of flyers. 2.2 The complainant also submits that, if returned to Sri Lanka, she will be targeted by the authorities, also because her husband lent the Tamil Tigers a fishing boat; she and her husband sheltered militants in their house and served them food on many occasions. 2.3 The complainant submits that in the past she has been arrested on several occasions by the police and beaten. On one occasion in 2003, after she moved to Karaveddy, which was under government control, she was detained for three days and beaten until all her teeth were knocked out of her mouth. She maintains that other members of her family were also targeted by the authorities and that her niece was killed in 2009. 2.4 The complainant submits that she obtained a passport through paying a bribe and eventually managed to flee to Denmark with the assistance of relatives who lived abroad and friends in Colombo. 2.5 The complainant arrived in Denmark on 11 October 2008 and sought asylum on 25February 2009. The Immigration Service rejected her application on 19 January 2010, because they did not find the account of the events that led to her seeking asylum coherent and credible. Following an appeal, the Refugee Board confirmed the decision of the Immigration Service on 19 May 2010 and the complainant was ordered to leave Denmark immediately. On an unspecified date in August 2010 the complainant was detained by the Danish police with the purpose of deporting her to Sri Lanka on 20 August 2010. The complainant claims that she has exhausted domestic remedies. The complaint 3. The complainant contends that if deported to Sri Lanka she would face detention and torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 20 August 2010, the State party informed the Committee that the complainant’s deadline for departure had been suspended while her complaint was under consideration by the Committee. 4.2 On 15 October 2010, the State party submitted that the complainant entered the country on 11 October 2008 on a visitor’s visa, valid until 4 January 2009, granted to visit her daughter and other relatives living in Denmark. On 10 February 2009, the Danish Immigration Service refused her application for family reunification. On 25 February 2009, the complainant applied for asylum. On 29 January 2010, her application was rejected by the Immigration Service. On 19 May 2010, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Immigration Service refusing asylum. 4.3 The State party submits that the complainant was motivated to make her asylum request because her husband had assisted the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam by lending them boats and engines and that she organized the funeral of her nephew, an active member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who was killed in 1999 and declared a “martyr”. She also claimed that the spouses of her nieces were members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, that one of her nieces had been killed by the army and that the Sri Lankan army was aware of her family connections and of her organizing the funeral, which became a big Tamil Tiger event. She also claimed that her husband and other family members were 3