CAT/C/47/D/347/2008 Court. As she was denied legal aid because her appeals had no chance of success, it is likely that any request for a court-appointed lawyer would have been rejected too. The case file shows that the complainant had a good understanding of the criteria applied in asylum proceedings and that she was capable of formulating her reasons clearly and intelligibly, and that she had even included references to case law in her applications for reconsideration. Consequently, the complainant did not need the assistance of a courtappointed lawyer to adequately assert her rights, and she has not suffered any harm as a result of not being represented in all the proceedings. 7.11 In conclusion, the State party reiterates that article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as requiring exemption from procedural fees and the assignment of a courtappointed lawyer in every case. In view of all the circumstances in the case at hand, it believes that the fact that no exemption was granted from the obligation to pay procedural fees and that no lawyer was appointed by the court does not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, the State party maintains all its earlier conclusions on the merits of the case. Additional submission by the complainant 8.1 On 29 August 2011, the complainant informed the Committee that her application for a residence permit on grounds of “serious personal hardship” had been rejected by the Federal Administrative Court in a decision of 8 August 2011.11 The Court found, among other things, that the complainant had not demonstrated that she was integrated in Switzerland socially, professionally and family-wise, and that she would be able to successfully reintegrate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country she had left when she was already 27 years old. The complainant points out that she has been living in Switzerland for 10 years and that she has not been able to work because her legal status in Switzerland does not allow her to do so. She repeats that there would be a serious risk to her health and safety if she was deported to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, because of the tragic human rights situation there, especially for women, because of her opposition to the current regime and her activities within APARECO, and because of the worrying state of her health. Moreover, she no longer has any family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and would no longer feel integrated there. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 9.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee further notes that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party does not contest admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee finds the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. 9.2 With regard to the procedural aspects of the State party’s law and practice, particularly the issue of advance payment of fees and representation by a lawyer when submitting an appeal in an asylum case, the Committee has taken note of the information supplied by the State party. It notes that the complainant was represented by a lawyer for part of the proceedings and that at no point did she submit a request for legal aid and representation by a lawyer. With regard to the advance payment of procedural fees, the Committee notes that when the Asylum Appeals Commission declared her appeal 11 10 See above, para. 6.1 et seq. GE.12-40160