CAT/C/46/D/379/2009 problems, thus providing insufficient information in order to conclude that the complainant’s symptoms are due to physical abuse or any other treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 4.17 As to the complainant’s allegations that she worked for a pastor who was a strong opponent of the regime in DRC, the State party submits that she failed to provide an adequate explanation as to why the authorities directed their attention towards her after the alleged persecution of the pastor. This allegation does not seem probable in the light of the complainant’s statement that she was not politically active. Moreover, the State party considers it unlikely that a mere affiliation to a parish with a politically active pastor would lead to the consequences described by the complainant, especially since she stated that she had never held a prominent position within the parish. 4.18 The State party also contends that the complainant initially omitted certain important circumstances about her escape from prison. During the interviews of 1 and 7 March 2006, she stated that members of her parish had helped her to escape by bribing prison guards. It was not until the written submission by her counsel that the allegation that she had received help from an acquaintance who did not belong to the parish came to light. The fact that the complainant failed to provide such essential information during the initial interviews weakens the credibility of her allegations. The State party further submits that the complainant’s description of her escape is vague and improbable. She has not provided any information that would explain her acquaintance’s incentives for helping her escape or how he had learned that she was imprisoned and at which facility. Neither had she provided any information as to the identity of the other man who was waiting in the car used to drive her from the prison. The State party also finds unlikely the fact that the complainant did not know the name of the prison where she was allegedly imprisoned for several months. 4.19 The State party disputes the author’s account of the manner in which she left DRC, considering it improbable in view of the control measures implemented at Kinshasa airport. It also finds unlikely that the complainant was assisted by a nun whose identity is unknown and with whom she lacked a common language, as well as that this nun carried all the necessary travel documents. 4.20 With regard to the complainant’s allegation that she was unaware of the whereabouts of her family, the State party submits that she made limited efforts to locate them. The complainant’s counsel indicated that the author has been in contact with the Red Cross, but she was unable to attend a scheduled meeting due to health problems. However, the State party maintains that the medical report submitted by the complainant does not suggest that her state of health prevented her from travelling or attending meetings. The fact that a group within the Red Cross was helping the complainant to locate her family was confirmed in a letter from a psychotherapist of the Red Cross, this being the only indication that the complainant attempted to find her family, although she had been living in Sweden for more than two years. In addition, her claim that her house had been looted is based only on her speculation. That is why it may not be excluded that her partner and her children can be found in DRC today. There is no information that the DRC authorities have tried to locate the complainant at her parents’ place in Mushenge. The complainant has not substantiated her claim that she lacks a social network in DRC. Even if in fact she is unable to locate her partner and children, she still has the possibility to return to DRC and relocate to Mushenge. 4.21 The State party further points out that, although incidents in the past should be taken into account when making the assessment pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, the deciding factor is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be subjected to any treatment contrary to the Convention upon return to her home country. In this respect, the State party recalls that, according to her own submissions, the complainant has not been convicted of any crime in DRC. This makes it improbable that 9