CAT/C/48/D/413/2010 2.16 On 16 November 2009, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal. It held that the information that the complainant had been sentenced to imprisonment and searched for by the police were new circumstances according to the Aliens Act and, therefore, had not been examined before. However, the complainant’s statement that she had received this information from an acquaintance in Burundi could not, in the absence of any further corroboration, be considered sufficiently substantiated to conclude that the new circumstances constituted lasting impediments to the enforcement of her expulsion order under chapter 12, section 19, of the Aliens Act. The documents, which were presented in original to the Migration Court, were of questionable quality and consequently had a low value as evidence. Regardless of this, the Migration Court concluded that the complainant was aware of the documents that were going to be sent to her already by the end of April or early May 2009, i.e. before the Migration Court’s judgement of 19 May 2009 in relation to her application for a residence permit. Before that time, she had been aware of the information that she had been sentenced and searched for by the police in Burundi. Consequently, she had had a possibility to present this information during the proceedings on her initial asylum application but decided not to do it. The reason given by the complainant, i.e. that she would have been asked to submit proof, was not considered by the Migration Court as a valid excuse under chapter 12, section 19, of the Aliens Act for not presenting the new circumstances at an earlier stage. 2.17 On 9 December 2009, the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against the Migration Court’s judgement. This decision is not subject to appeal. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that there exists a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in Burundi. She refers to the sixth report of the SecretaryGeneral on the United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi (S/2009/611), and to a 2009 report by Amnesty International USA regarding the poor human rights record in Burundi, including the use of torture against detainees in prison, unlawful killings by the security forces, widespread rape and sexual violence, and impunity. In the light of the above, the complainant submits that due to her association with the deceased brother’s activities and the expected imprisonment for aiding murder and theft, her expulsion from Sweden to Burundi would expose her to harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, torture and other forms of abuse, such as rape and sexual violence. She claims, therefore, that her forcible return to Burundi would constitute a breach by Sweden of her rights under article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainant submits that she is at personal risk of being tortured upon her return to her country of origin. She argues that a close family member has already been killed and she fears that in case of her expulsion to Burundi she may face the same fate, and there is an obvious risk that she will be subjected to ill-treatment, torture and rape while imprisoned. In this connection, the complainant states that she is innocent and has not committed the acts for which she was convicted. The background for her conviction is ethnic contradictions in Burundi and her brother’s involvement with the Sans Échec. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale of 2 September 2010, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits. As to the admissibility, it states that it is not aware of the same matter having been or being subject to another procedure of international investigation or settlement. With reference to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the State party acknowledges that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present communication. 6