CAT/C/46/D/379/2009 in connection with her journey to Sweden. She further claimed that she would be at risk even if she were to relocate to Kinshasa or to another part of the DRC. She maintained that she was wanted by authorities and would be detained upon return. The State party submits that, according to medical reports provided by the complainant, she was in good health, apart from complaints of back pain. 4.5 In a submission dated 17 November 2006, counsel informed the Migration Board that the complainant had worked with people from Kinshasa and had moved around DRC, this having an impact on her pronunciation. She worked closely with the pastor and therefore became the next target after his death. Counsel also stated that the general situation of women in DRC makes it impossible for the complainant to relocate internally, and maintained that medical reports corroborate the complainant’s allegations of illtreatment in detention. 4.6 The Migration Board rejected the complainant’s asylum request on 11 July 2007 on grounds that she had not provided any information to prove her identity or her activity in the parish. It also recalled that, according to her statements, the complainant had not been persecuted or convicted of any crime. The Migration Board had therefore found that she failed to substantiate her allegation that she ran the risk of persecution due to her religious and political beliefs. The complainant’s story about travel documents and travel itinerary was not deemed credible. The Board concluded that the circumstances of the complainant’s case were not exceptionally distressing so as to justify the granting of a residence permit. 4.7 The complainant appealed against the decision of the Migration Board, claiming that her identity could be verified through the language analysis conducted by the migration authorities. She also recalled that arbitrary arrests, rapes and torture are common in DRC. The complainant further held that, according to the country information that the Migration Board had obtained from the Swedish embassy in DRC, it is possible to bribe guards at the airport of Kinshasa in order to leave the country. The Migration Board requested the Migration Court of Stockholm to dismiss the complainant’s appeal, arguing that the complainant had not been politically active in DRC and held no prominent position within the parish, which made it improbable that she would be of interest to the authorities upon her return. 4.8 On 3 October 2007, the complainant supplemented her appeal with two documents: a medical report in support of her claim that she suffered from health problems as a consequence of the abuse allegedly suffered by her in DRC, and a letter from a Swedish parish which testified to her religious conviction. On 26 February 2008, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s request for an oral hearing. 4.9 On 25 March 2008, the complainant submitted a report issued by a psychotherapist working for the Red Cross, dated 14 March 2008, indicating that she suffered from sleeping problems caused by her possible return to DRC and that she was still affected by the violations to which she was subjected in her home country. In a submission to the Migration Court, the Migration Board contested the relevance of the medical report and maintained that the complainant failed to substantiate the claim that she ran the risk of persecution due to her alleged connection with the parish. She had not proved her membership in the parish or that she had been politically active, or that the members of the parish were particularly exposed to the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment. 4.10 The complainant’s appeal was rejected by the Migration Court on 23 May 2008. The Court concluded that the complainant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence in support of her claims. The Court also found her story about the escape from prison and travel to Sweden vague and improbable. The complainant failed to substantiate her claim of being a refugee or a person otherwise in need of protection pursuant to Chapter 4, Sections 1 and 2, of the Aliens Act. Furthermore, after having considered the complainant’s state of 6