CAT/C/46/D/379/2009 submitted previously to the Migration Board (see note 3 above); and a document produced by a parish in Kiruna (northern part of Sweden) confirming the complainant’s strong religious and political convictions. On 25 March 2008, the complainant submitted a medical report issued by a psychotherapist working at the Swedish Red Cross treatment center in Luleå, who concluded that, according to the complainant, she showed signs of depression due to the trauma she experienced in her home country. On 20 May 2008, she submitted another medical report from the same psychotherapist who referred, according to the complainant, both to her fear of returning to DRC and to the fact that she suffers from sleeping problems, is still being affected by the rapes to which she was exposed, and consumes large quantities of alcohol to allay her anxiety. On 23 May 2008, the appeal was rejected by the Migration Court. The complainant then appealed to the Migration Court of Appeal, which rejected the appeal on 10 July 2008. On 25 February 2009, the complainant filed an application to the Migration Board claiming that her relationship to a Swedish citizen is another impediment to the enforcement of the expulsion order. On 27 February 2009, the Migration Board decided not to grant the complainant a residence permit under Chapter 12, Section 18, of the 2005 Aliens Act4. This decision is non-appealable. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that her forcible deportation to DRC would amount to a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention. She maintains that she would be arrested and tortured upon return to DRC due to her religious and political beliefs and because she has criticized the regime and is connected to the now well-known deceased pastor Albert Lukusa. The complainant submits that she faces a personal risk of torture if she were to return to DRC, and that her claim is sufficiently substantiated by the information she provided on her arrest and subsequent detention, torture and ill-treatment, as well as by evidence on the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, and mass violations of human rights in DRC5. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 25 September 2009, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It submits that the complainant applied for asylum on 27 February 2006, the same day she allegedly arrived in Sweden. She carried neither a travel nor an identity document. The Swedish Migration Board held the first interview with the complainant on 1 March 2006. During the interview, the complainant stated that she was 4 Chapter 12 (“Impediments to the enforcement of refusal of entry and expulsion”), Section 18 states: “If, in a case concerning the enforcement of a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order that has become final and non-appealable, new circumstances come to light that mean that (1) there is an impediment to enforcement under Section 1, 2 or 3, (2) there is reason to assume that the intended country of return will not be willing to accept the alien or (3) there are medical or other special grounds why the order should not be enforced, the Swedish Migration Board may grant a permanent residence permit if the impediment is of a lasting nature. If there is only a temporary impediment to enforcement, the Board may grant a temporary residence permit. The Swedish Migration Board may also order a stay of enforcement”. 5 The complainant refers to international sources that report the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in DRC: Human Rights Report 2008. Democratic Republic of the Congo (U.S. Department of State, 25 February 2009); Special Report on Sexual Violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (The Institute for War and Peace Reporting, October 2008); Human Rights Watch Report “We Will Crush You” (25 November 2008); World Report 2009 (Human Rights Watch, 2009). 4