CAT/C/46/D/379/2009 evidence does not prove the alleged cause of her health problems, i.e. that these are due to the ill-treatment suffered in DRC. Therefore, no conclusion as to the causes of her health problems can be drawn from these medical reports. 6.3 The complainant’s argument that she is unable to provide a document proving her identity since her identity card was confiscated by the security forces of DRC appears speculative insofar as it is based solely on her own assumption. She has not taken any initiative to prove her identity and made limited efforts to contact her family. She failed to provide any evidence in support of her claim that the contacts with the Red Cross led to no results. All these facts weaken the credibility of her submission. 6.4 The State party recalls that the complainant had made changes regarding the spelling of the pastor’s name several times. Initially, the complainant indicated his name as being ‘Albert Lusaka’. In a later submission, the counsel referred to him as ‘Albert Lukusa’. However, during the third interview, counsel informed the Board that the spelling in the written submission was inaccurate and the pastor’s name was in fact Albert Lusaka, as indicated initially by the complainant herself. The Swedish embassy in Kinshasa clarified that the pastor’s surname was Lukusa, while counsel in her email to the embassy referred to the pastor as ‘Lusaka’. In view of these inconsistencies, the State party considers that it is justified to question the veracity of the complainant’s allegation that she has worked with the pastor. The State party concludes that the complainant’s return to DRC would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Additional comments by the complainant 7.1 In a submission dated 9 June 2010, the author insists on her claim that the assessment made by the migration authorities is different from the assessment of the Committee under article 3 of the Convention. She further submits that she has done everything in her power to get in touch with her family, albeit unsuccessfully. 7.2 As to the State party’s argument that she failed to provide any evidence from her home country, the complainant, with reference to article 196 of the UNHCR Handbook9, recalls that she was imprisoned and after her escape she left DRC illegally and in haste. She arrived in Sweden with only the barest necessities and without personal documents. 7.3 With regard to the error in the spelling of the pastor’s name, the complainant reaffirms her explanation that this is a simple mistake made by counsel and the interpreter. She reiterates her claim that her return to DRC would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Further comments by the parties 8.1 By letter of 17 August 2010, the State party refutes the complainant’s argument that she has done everything in her power to contact her family in DRC. It points out that any attempts to locate persons through the Red Cross are recorded, even if the efforts lead to the conclusion that the whereabouts of the relatives cannot be clarified. However, the complainant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate the result of her alleged efforts to get in touch with, or locate, her family. There is nothing – excepting her vague allegation in the latest submission – to suggest that she has done something else to locate her family except turning to the Red Cross. Therefore, the State party maintains that she has not substantiated her claims that her relatives are missing and she lacks a social network in DRC or that it would not be possible for her to relocate to Mushenge, where her parents live, upon her return to DRC. It reiterates its position that the evidence and circumstances 9 12 See note 8 supra.