CAT/C/71/D/792/2016 5.3 The complainant submits that the last decision of the Refugee Appeals Board was based on background information and did not consider the risks she could face after her photograph and name had been posted online in an article. 5.4 The complainant contests the State party’s assertion about discrepancies between the account of the facts submitted to the Committee and the information she provided during the asylum proceedings. First, she notes that her assertion that she was repeatedly questioned and called derogatory names by men seems very consistent with her statement that she and B. were approached by men who wanted to date them and who, having been turned down, then asked them if they were lesbians. Second, she submits that it is possible that her underlying reason for going to Denmark with A. was the opportunity to flee Uganda and avoid the risk of being raped and imprisoned because of her sexual orientation. In this respect, she recalls her medical diagnosis according to which she does not take any kind of initiative and leaves it to others to make important decisions regarding her life. She also recalls that she has been identified as a victim of human trafficking. She concludes that, owing to her particular vulnerability and her mental state, she cannot be expected to always explain the underlying reasons “on her own account” and, therefore, it cannot be regarded as “painting a different picture of the actual facts” when she expresses deeper reasons for her behaviour. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 20 June 2019, the State party submitted additional observations stating that the complainant’s observations dated 28 February 2019 did not provide new information. Therefore, the State party reiterates its observations of 19 January 2018. 6.2 The State party acknowledges that, according to recent background information available to the Refugee Appeals Board, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons face a difficult situation in Uganda. However, this does not imply that the complainant, if deported, would face ill-treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention. The State party notes that the decisive issue is whether the complainant, with her specific profile, would face a real risk of ill-treatment upon return. The State party maintains that the complainant failed to establish substantial grounds for believing that she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Uganda. 6.3 The State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board took into account the complainant’s vulnerability and mental state by accepting her grounds for seeking asylum, despite inconsistencies and unlikely elements in her statements. The State party maintains, however, that the facts of the case are interpreted differently in the submission made on behalf of the complainant and in the complainant’s statements during the asylum proceedings. 6.4 The State party concludes that the complainant’s return to Uganda would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted 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 (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. 7.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded because the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly 8