detention, that does not constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that a person will be tortured if he or she is returned to Venezuela. (b) With regard to the complainant’s personal situation, the State party recalls that, unlike many other authors of complaints submitted to the Committee, the complainant has not belonged to any party or political organization. Her complaint is based on the fact that she was wrongfully suspected of being involved in a bribery scandal, for which she could be sentenced to imprisonment if she returned to Venezuela, in poor conditions of detention. Moreover, she does not claim that she was ever subjected to torture in the past and, more importantly, has not explicitly demonstrated how she would be subjected to torture if she returned to Venezuela. The State party also points out that Venezuela has not requested the complainant’s extradition and that there are no grounds for believing that the Venezuelan authorities intend to imprison her. On the contrary, the State party was able to ascertain that the head of the ONI, the primary suspect in the bribery scandal, has not been arrested. 4.4 The State party reports that, in their decisions of 24 August 1998 and 14 March 2000, respectively, the National Migration Board and the Aliens’ Commission argued that the fact of being in danger of being tried for a crime or of being subjected to harassment in Venezuela is not a reason for granting asylum in Sweden. Both bodies also ascertain that, if she was tried, the complainant would have a fair trial and would have a good chance of winning her case. The State party adds that it does not question the complainant’s testimony about the bribery scandal and the subsequent harassment. However, it does trust the arguments put forward by the two bodies. Comments by the complainant: 5.1 In her comments of 27 March 2002, the complainant recognizes that the State party does not contest her statements on factual grounds, but rather in respect of the fact that she would run the risk of being subjected to torture if she returned to Venezuela. The complainant nevertheless maintains that there is a clear danger that she would be put on trial and given a long prison sentence and that there is therefore also a danger that she would be subjected to torture in a Venezuelan prison, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 5.2 With regard to the arguments of the State party that the complaint should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae, the complainant says that, when she left her post, she lost the protection of her status as a civil servant and became exposed to harassment and threats by the ONI and the DEX, where she was told she would be accused of having forged the documents herself. The complainant argues that, since the threats come from persons who are still in high political office, it is very doubtful whether she would receive a fair trial. She adds that the decisions taken by the State party in this case are based on erroneous information, so that they fail to distinguish between the Attorney-General on the one hand and the ONI and the DEX on the other or to take account of the fact that the head of the ONI was at no time her supervisor. In addition, while the complainant acknowledges that she had stated during questioning by the officials of the National Migration Board that torture was not permitted in Venezuela, she had also stated that she feared torture and the conditions in Venezuelan prisons. 5