CAT/C/71/D/792/2016 4.11 The State party also contests the complainant’s statement to the Committee according to which she had lived in town Z “avoiding further ill-treatment from the Ugandan authorities”. At no time did the complainant state to the Danish authorities that she had had problems with or had been harassed by the Ugandan authorities. It appears from the statement given by the complainant to the Refugee Appeals Board on 30 September 2014 that she believed that the local council in her parents’ village had come to know about her homosexuality before she moved away from her parents, but that she had not been contacted by the police or the local authorities. Against this background, the State party cannot accept the complainant’s account of the facts to the Committee. This also applies to the complainant’s statement to the Committee according to which she had lived in constant fear of being raped before fleeing Uganda and had hidden her sexuality and taken precautions to avoid further ill-treatment. 4.12 Regarding the complainant’s previous ill-treatment in Uganda in the form of “corrective rape” and threats from her family and the local community, the State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board agrees with the complainant that information on previous ill-treatment is an important factor when assessing whether there is an actual risk of ill-treatment but disagrees that it is a decisive indicator of future risk. In accordance with paragraph 8 of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1996), the Board made a thorough assessment of whether the abuse and treatment to which the complainant had been subjected by other people in the village of her parents imply that, if returned to Uganda, she would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. The Board’s findings against this hypothesis are partly based on the fact that a long time has passed since she was subjected to the treatment in question8 and partly on the fact that, despite her particular vulnerability and mental state resulting from her traumatic experience, the complainant subsequently managed to live for nine years in town Z and had a homosexual relationship with A. there until she departed for Denmark in 2007 with A. and on A.’s initiative. 4.13 The State party observes that, in compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, cited by the complainant, and in line with article 3 (2) of the Convention, the Refugee Appeals Board conducted a thorough assessment of whether the complainant would be at risk of abuse contrary to article 3 of the Convention in case of her return to Uganda due to the general situation for lesbians in Uganda. The State party refers to the Board’s decision of 30 May 2017, for which it examined Ugandan law and the actual situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, relying on more recent background information than that referred to by the complainant. 4.14 The State party also refers to the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 5 December 2016, by which the Board found that the applicant was neither a high-profile homosexual individual nor in conflict with anyone at the time of her departure from Uganda. Regarding the complainant’s advocacy activities in Denmark, the State party is of the opinion that the circumstances in J.K. v. Canada differ from the circumstances in the case at hand. J.K. had participated actively in efforts to advocate the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in Uganda, had been charged by the Ugandan authorities with “having carnal knowledge against nature” and could have been detained upon his return to Uganda pursuant to those charges. Unlike J.K., the complainant did not engage in any activities in favour of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex in Uganda and her political activities for organizations advocating the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex in Denmark appear to have been carried out anonymously or at least in such a way as to not have made her a high-profile individual to such an extent that her circumstances would justify the granting of asylum under section 7 of the Aliens Act. The State further submits that the situation in Uganda has changed in recent years and continues to change. The situation during the period 2010–2012, when it was assumed that the AntiHomosexuality Act could be brought before Parliament again at any time, cannot be compared with the current situation. 4.15 Finally, regarding the article containing the complainant’s name and photograph that was posted online by a Ugandan gossip publication, the State party observes that, following 8 6 The State party refers to para. 8 (b) of the Committee’s general comment No. 1.