CAT/C/48/D/413/2010 4.12 The State party also contends that details in the complainant’s statements in her asylum application are in themselves contradictory. The complainant’s information that she was close enough to hear the Hutu militia asking her brother about her, at the time she claims he was killed, without being discovered by the soldiers lacks credibility. The State party also considers the complainant’s information as to how she managed to run away from the house on that occasion and stay with a friend, only a short distance away, for two months without being searched for or discovered there, as lacking in credibility. It is also clear, in the State party’s view, that the complainant has lied about the fact that she was the holder of a passport, as she revealed this when she was confronted with the information about the visa application. 4.13 In the light of the above and the weakness in the complainant’s description of the preparations and departure from Burundi, the State party concludes that the credibility of the complainant’s statements and claims regarding her asylum case before the Swedish migration authorities and before the Committee is very weak. Accordingly, the State party submits that she cannot be given “the benefit of the doubt” in the present communication. The State party further concludes that, given the low credibility of the complainant’s claim for asylum, there is no information or evidence in support of her statement that she risks being subjected to ill-treatment and rape by Hutu militia in Burundi, because of her brother’s alleged previous activities in the Sans Échec. 4.14 The State party further argues that, correspondingly, her statement that she was sentenced to imprisonment, notified and searched for in Burundi, is not credible. It adds that the complainant’s explanation as to how she obtained the documents stating that she was notified, searched for and sentenced in Burundi is very incoherent and difficult to grasp, despite the fact that it was presented by her in writing to the Migration Court. Furthermore, the State party concurs with the conclusion that the Migration Board drew after having examined the documents of the sentence, the notification and the search warrant, that they are of questionable quality and, consequently, have a low value as evidence. As to the complainant’s statement that her legal aid counsel neglected to forward the documents in question to the migration authorities, the State party submits that a statement of that kind should be substantiated and preferably be confirmed or refuted, or at least communicated to the counsel. It notes that no such information has been presented by the complainant. Given that there are several statements made by the complainant that the State party considers to be untrustworthy, that consideration applies to her general credibility. Consequently, the State party does not consider the complainant’s statement regarding her counsel credible. 4.15 The State party argues that no other statements or information presented by the complainant shows that she would be at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment or rape if returned to Burundi. Her statement in the asylum application that she lacks a social network in Burundi contradicts her own statements regarding her family in the application for a Swedish visa. According to the latter, her parents, her older sister and her younger sister and brother live in Burundi. Furthermore, according to what the complainant has alleged in relation to her whereabouts in Burundi just before she left the country, it is apparent that she has a social network. The State party concludes that the circumstances invoked by the complainant do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Therefore, the complainant has not shown substantial grounds for believing that she would run a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if deported to Burundi. 4.16 Finally, the State party submits that under chapter 12, section 22, of the Aliens Act, an expulsion order expires four years after the order becomes final and not subject to appeal. In the present communication, the decision on the complainant’s expulsion became final and not subject to appeal on 27 July 2009, when the Migration Court of Appeal 10