CAT/C/46/D/350/2008 September 2004. In light of the documents submitted and the human rights situation prevailing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, UNHCR had concluded that the complainant was clearly not at risk of persecution in his country of origin.3 4.12 With regard to the medical report dated 22 January 2009 submitted to the Committee by the complainant and forwarded to the State party, the State party notes that, as in the case of the previous medical reports submitted by the complainant, the facts set out in the case history rest solely on the patient’s account, and that the report does not prove the origin, as claimed by the complainant, of the mental health problems documented (posttraumatic stress disorder, depression). The State party maintains that these problems could be attributed to other factors, such as the complainant’s separation from his family and his precarious status in Switzerland. In addition, an examination of the medical report reveals that certain facts recounted by the complainant are inconsistent with the claims he made in the asylum proceedings. For example, in the report he claims for the first time to have heard about his wife’s rape. He makes no mention of his transfer from Kinshasa to Kasapa prison in Katanga. In the request for review submitted to the Federal Administrative Court, the complainant had claimed that he had not been able to speak to his wife until March 2008, after years of total loss of contact, while in the medical report he says contact was restored in October 2008. These contradictions and inconsistencies detract from the complainant’s credibility. Lastly, the complainant gives no details of the ill-treatment allegedly suffered in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The State party therefore maintains that the medical report dated 22 January 2009 provides no evidence on which to conclude that the complainant would be in danger if he were returned to his country of origin. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 27 April 2009, the complainant wrote that, with regard to the torture, the medical reports dated 4 March 2005 and 1 June 2006 showed that in his initial therapy sessions he had already reported the ill-treatment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The reports also stated that the complainant had been traumatized by the events experienced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. With his comments, the complainant also provides a copy of the wanted notice issued by the National Intelligence Agency, which was displayed at all border crossing points in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He also refers to confirmations provided by three churches where he reportedly had given talks. The complainant points out that the State party has so far failed either to carry out investigations or to provide any evidence to disprove his allegations. He adds that the first hearing of the asylum proceedings had been conducted by a police officer who had failed to gain the complainant’s trust. Because of the manner in which the police had treated him (making threats and ordering him to undress), the complainant had not felt able to speak freely about the torture he had been subjected to in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 5.2 The complainant emphasizes that the asylum application lodged by his wife in Zimbabwe is backed up by proof of the violence that she suffered in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. With regard to safety and security in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in general, the complainant underlines that the Swiss Refugee Council’s report cannot be considered relevant, due to the absence of research on GJCC and on the complainant’s activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The complainant highlights, however, that the Swiss Refugee Council acknowledges the risks to which activists of certain religious communities who are said to have engaged in political activities opposing Joseph Kabila and the Government on behalf of their groups may be exposed. The complainant adds that he has regularly taken part in activities organized by 3 8 The UNHCR assessment is annexed to the State party’s observations. GE.11-43878