CAT/C/71/D/792/2016 correspond to the account of the facts given to the Danish authorities during the asylum proceedings. 8.8 The Committee observes that it is not disputed that the complainant was subjected to “corrective rape” on the basis of her sexual orientation in Uganda. The Committee refers to its general comment No. 4 (2017) and recalls that, when applying the principle of nonrefoulement, States parties should consider whether, in the State of origin or in the State to which the person is to be deported, the person has been or would be a victim of violence, including gender-based or sexual violence, in public or in private, amounting to torture, without the intervention of the competent authorities for the protection of the victim. 19 When examining allegations of violations of article 3 of the Convention, the Committee should take into account whether the complainant has been tortured or ill-treated by, at the instigation of or with the consent or the acquiescence (tacit agreement) of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity in the past, and, if so, whether this was in the recent past. 20 8.9 The Committee recalls that rape committed by private actors without the State exercising due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible constitutes torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 21 At the same time, however, the Committee notes that the complainant was the victim of an aggression by a private individual and that the incident was never reported to the authorities. The complainant does not argue that the Ugandan authorities could have been aware of the rape, that they did not show due diligence in identifying and sanctioning the perpetrator or that they did not offer her an effective remedy. 8.10 The Committee recalls that ill-treatment suffered in the past is only one element to be taken into account when assessing the risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The principal aim of such an assessment is to determine whether the complainant currently runs the risk of being subjected to torture upon her return to her country of origin. It does not automatically follow from the complainant’s former ill-treatment that she would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Uganda.22 The Committee notes that, when assessing the complainant’s asylum case, the Danish migration authorities took into account the important period of time that had elapsed between the complainant’s rape and her departure from Uganda and the fact that, during nine years prior to her departure, she had lived with another woman and had had homosexual relationships without being the victim of aggressions by members of the local community and without being persecuted by the authorities. The Committee further notes that the complainant does not claim that the Ugandan authorities attempted to prevent her from leaving Uganda. Neither has she submitted any evidence suggesting that the Ugandan authorities, such as the police or other security services, have been looking for her.23 8.11 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant did not engage in activities advocating the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in Uganda and that her activities for organizations involved in such advocacy in Denmark appeared to be anonymous or of a nature that has not made her a high-profile individual to such an extent that she would risk torture if returned to Uganda. The Committee recalls that, when evaluating the risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention, it is pertinent to take into account whether the complainant has engaged in political or other activities within or outside the State concerned that would appear to make the complainant vulnerable to the risk of being subjected to torture in case of deportation.24 The Committee considers that, even if her participation in activities advocating the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in Denmark could potentially put her at risk of ill-treatment contrary to 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ibid., para. 29 (c). Ibid., para. 49 (b). General comment No. 2 (2007), para. 18. See X, Y and Z v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/61/1996), para. 11.2; G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7; X. v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), para. 9.5; and S.S.B. v. Denmark (CAT/C/60/D/602/2014), para. 8.7. See, for example, I.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/683/2015), para. 7.6; and H.R.E.S. v. Switzerland, para. 8.13. General comment No. 4 (2017), para. 49 (f). 11