CAT/C/48/D/413/2010 strongly speak in favour of the conclusion that the complainant submitted the visa application in Algiers herself. Moreover, the facts submitted in the said application lead to the conclusion that the complainant’s story regarding her brother’s involvement in Sans Échec and his subsequent killing cannot be true. In the light of the lack of reliable written evidence in support of the claims, as well as the strong reasons for questioning the complainant’s credibility and the veracity of her claims, the State party maintains that the complainant has not fulfilled her burden of proof to show that she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in Burundi. Consequently, the burden of proof has not shifted to the State party. It adds that there is no basis for maintaining the interim measure requested under rule 114 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, since the enforcement of the expulsion order would not cause the complainant any irreparable damage. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s further observations 7. On 17 July 2011, the complainant reiterated her initial claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that she will be tortured in Burundi if she has to return. She submits that these claims have been corroborated by, inter alia, documents and that she has explained how she managed to obtain them. The complainant adds that she cannot give a better explanation as to why there is a visa application in “her” name and why her passport has been used by someone else, since she does not know what happened. She is “just telling the truth”. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether 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. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the instant case, the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8.3 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues, which should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility and declares the communication admissible. Since both the State party and the complainant have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee proceeds immediately with the consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainant to Burundi would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee notes that the issue of whether a State party has an obligation to 13