CAT/C/47/D/347/2008 9.6 The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of article 3, that “the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable”.15 The complainant contends that she faces a personal and present risk of torture in the Democratic Republic of the Congo because, at her fiancé’s behest, she spread a political message in her neighbourhood against the regime in power and that, as a result, she received threats from the security services, which have been looking for her since her departure from the family home and, subsequently, from her country in 2001. The Committee notes that the State party challenges the credibility of the complainant’s statements, particularly her claim that she spread a political message that she had received from her fiancé. It noted that the means reportedly deployed, both by the rebels to spread this message and by the Congolese authorities to find an isolated opponent such as the complainant, were disproportionate and therefore implausible. The complainant has not put forward a persuasive argument that would allow the Committee to call into question the State party’s conclusions in this respect. In view of all these circumstances, the Committee is not convinced that, 11 years after the event described in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the complainant, who was never politically active in that country, is a wanted person. As for her political activities in Switzerland, and despite her late claim to be active in the Alliance des Patriotes pour la Refondation du Congo,16 she does not specify how long she has been involved in this movement or demonstrate convincingly how such activities would expose her to a specific risk of violation of article 3 if she were to be returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 9.7 With regard to the complainant’s claim that she was raped at Kinshasa airport as she was about to leave the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which she mentioned in her second letter to the Committee,17 the Committee cannot grant much weight to the allegation, as she raised it only summarily to the Committee, merely mentioning that she had been raped by two officials who had helped her to flee, without further substantiating the allegation. 9.8 With regard to the complainant’s claims regarding her current state of health, the Committee has noted the difficulties that she is experiencing. It has also noted the State party’s contention that the complainant could consult a doctor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She has not challenged this argument, and the Committee has itself found reports which, while they demonstrate the uncertainties and high cost of health care in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, show that facilities do exist in Kinshasa for the treatment of depression.18 The Committee further observes that, even if the state of health of the complainant were to deteriorate after her deportation, this would not, of itself, amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment attributable to the State party within the meaning of article 16 of the Convention.19 15 16 17 18 19 12 See footnote 9 above (para. 6.4). This claim appears only in the complainant’s fourth submission to the Committee (dated 26 March 2009). Dated 24 July 2008. See, for example, the country file for the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the “Country of Return Information” project (November 2008), para. 3.6.1, and the report by the Organisation suisse d’aide aux réfugiés (OSAR) entitled “DRC: Psychiatrische Versorgung”, A. Geiser, 10 June 2009, p. 2. See communication No. 186/2001, K.K. v. Switzerland, Views of 11 November 2003, para. 6.8; and communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, Views of 15 May 1998, para. 6.7. GE.12-40160