CAT/C/46/D/379/2009 (hereinafter UNHCR Handbook), the cases when an asylum seeker can provide evidence for all his/her statements will be the exception rather than the rule. In most cases when a person is fleeing from persecution, she very frequently arrives in another country without any personal documents, i.e. identity card. The author submits that she had never had a passport, but the identity card she had was most likely taken by the security forces at the time of her arrest. She refers to the conclusion of the language analysis, according to which her mother tongue is Tchilouba and she has a level of French typical of the less educated in DRC. Therefore it is likely that she originates from the region from which she claims to be. She also recalls that a person who is not in DRC cannot obtain identity documents without personal appearance, as confirmed by the Swedish embassy in Kinshasa. The author affirms that she has not been able to make contact with her family, although she tried to locate them with the assistance of the Red Cross, without success. 5.4 As to the error in spelling the name of the pastor, the complainant affirms that it is attributable to the counsel and the interpreter. She also explains that her medical reports were issued by a psychotherapist who treated her for more than half a year and they support her allegations of having been imprisoned and subjected to torture and ill-treatment. The author further claims that, although she does not consider herself to have been politically active per se, she feels a well-founded fear of persecution due to her religious/political beliefs and the fact that the pastor had criticized the regime. As to the details surrounding her escape, the author maintains that she was helped by people from the parish, i.e. by Douglas M. whom she knew through the parish and her friends there. 5.5 The complainant claims that, although she did not commit any criminal act, she criticized the regime and was therefore imprisoned and subjected to torture. Upon return to DRC, she will be punished and again imprisoned for her religious/political beliefs and for having escaped from prison. She maintains that her return to DRC would amount to a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 In its submission of 23 April 2010, the State party refutes the author’s argument that the migration authorities’ assessment of whether an expulsion would violate article 3 of the Convention is made on the basis of the same assessment as when determining refugee status, and points out that the examination under the Aliens Act is the same as the one made under article 3 of the Convention and actually goes further as the alien is also protected from being sent to a country where he or she would risk the death penalty or inhuman treatment or punishment, which is not covered by the prohibition of non-refoulement in article 3 of the Convention. 6.2 As regards the complainant’s claim that she has adduced written evidence in support of her claims, the State party recalls that the complainant has not submitted any documents to substantiate her alleged membership of the parish. Furthermore, the medical shared between the applicant and the examiner. Indeed, in some cases, it may be for the examiner to use all the means at his disposal to produce the necessary evidence in support of the application. Even such independent research may not, however, always be successful and there may also be statements that are not susceptible of proof. In such cases, if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt”. See the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1. 11