CAT/C/48/D/413/2010 refused leave to appeal. Accordingly, the expulsion order in question will become statutebarred on 27 July 2013. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 15 December 2010, the complainant reiterated her initial statements in relation to her identity, country of origin and events that led to her departure from Burundi. As to the entanglements with the alleged passport and visa application, she submits that she fell in love with a man, whom she met in Burundi. When he asked her to give him her passport and photos, she did so. The complainant has never applied for a visa nor has she been in Algeria or France or anywhere else as claimed by the Migration Board and others. She was not subjected to persecution, ill-treatment or punishment while she remained in Burundi after her brother’s killing, because she was in hiding. She left Burundi with the help of smugglers and for this reason she has no information about the passport on which she travelled to Sweden. The only thing she cared about was leaving her country of origin and getting to a safe place. 5.2 As to the merits, the complainant submits that since she has provided a high level of details and information to substantiate her claims, the burden of proof should shift from her to the State party.15 The complainant argues that she would be imprisoned upon her return to Burundi and imprisonment would lead to her being subjected to torture within the meaning of this term, as set out in article 1 of the Convention. She reiterates that, based on the current situation in Burundi, combined with her reasons for asylum and protection as presented to the Swedish migration authorities and in the communication to the Committee, her expulsion to Burundi would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 5.3 The complainant contests the State party’s assertion that it applies the same test when considering an asylum application under the Aliens Act as the Committee will apply when examining a subsequent communication under the Convention. She submits that the Swedish migration authorities, when considering an asylum application under the Act, must start out by examining whether the applicant is a refugee (under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention)), thereafter the authorities examine whether the applicant might be in need of protection due to other circumstances or if there are grounds of exceptionally distressing circumstances and the applicant should be granted a residence permit on one of those grounds. The complainant argues, therefore, that the authorities’ assessment is characterized by the refugee status determination in accordance with the Refugee Convention and not the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 5.4 The complainant submits that the Refugee Convention is both broader and narrower than article 3 of the Convention against Torture. It is broader, as a “refugee”, a person with a right to non-refoulement under article 33 of that Convention, is a person who faces a “well founded fear of persecution” on particular grounds in a receiving State. “Persecution” may fall short of “torture”, so the Refugee Convention applies in circumstances where one fears a lesser form of ill-treatment in a receiving State. On the other hand, the reasons why one might face torture are irrelevant for the purposes of assessment under article 3 of the Convention against Torture, whereas reasons why one might face persecution are relevant under the Refugee Convention. Furthermore, the rights under article 3 of the Convention against Torture are absolute, whereas refugee rights can be denied. In this regard, the complainant states that the assessments of the Swedish migration authorities and the State party in relation to whether or not the complainant’s expulsion would violate article 3 of the 15 Reference is made to communication No. 149/1999, A.S. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 24 November 2000, para. 8.6. 11