CAT/C/64/D/730/2016 on its illegal criminal activities with the careless knowledge of the UNHCR Inspector General in Geneva, who has disregarded her complaint and those of other asylum seekers. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 5 September 2016, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. As to the facts 4.2 The State party submits that the first disagreement between the complainant and the Malian law enforcement authorities occurred when she was asked to deliver food to the police station where the victims of trafficking were placed. The complainant argued that the victims were supposed to be sheltered in her organization’s building, not in the police station. She also informed the Nigerian Embassy about this fact but continued delivering food to the victims at her own expense for five days. She was promised a reimbursement by the Malian Police. Several days later, she found out from an article by the British Broadcasting Corporation that the victims had been returned to Nigeria by plane. The Malian Police thought that the complainant had already received reimbursement from the Nigerian Embassy and asked her to return the payment that they had given to her. 4.3 As to the proceedings in Georgia, the State party submits that, after being interviewed on 18 October 2013 and 21 January 2014, the complainant was not granted either refugee or humanitarian status because the Ministry considered that her fear of persecution in Nigeria was not founded on objective grounds. It did not accept the complainant’s allegations regarding death threats from officials at the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons because it was the National Agency that had carried out a special operation with Malian law enforcement officers aimed at releasing Nigerian women who were victims of human trafficking. In fact, the National Agency and the complainant had an agreement under private law. In particular, the complainant’s organization was responsible for providing the food for women who were victims of human trafficking. According to the evidence provided by the complainant to the Ministry, the National Agency did reimburse her. Moreover, in the event of a misunderstanding, it would be a private dispute between the parties to the agreement, not persecution. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the complainant was persecuted or had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or opinion and, because of such fear, she was not able to return to her country of origin or to enjoy the protection of that country. The dismissal decision also mentioned that, during an interview, the complainant was aggressive and her answers were not consistent since her allegations regarding her persecution by the National Agency were false. 4.4 As to the complainant’s appeal before the courts against the Ministry’s decision, the State party mentions that, on 8 May 2014, the Tbilisi City Court dismissed her complaint because she had not presented any evidence that would reasonably support her allegations of persecution or a well-founded risk of becoming a victim of persecution. Moreover, she failed to cooperate when she was asked to submit emails or other supporting correspondence, stating that she had forgotten her password. It was also uncertain what kind of relationship she had with the Nigerian and Malian officials. She stated that the authorities had not reimbursed her costs. However, when the Ministry representative asked why she had indicated in her application for asylum that she had been given a payment, the complainant answered that she did not remember why she had done that. Furthermore, the Court paid attention to the complainant’s allegations that victims of human trafficking were detained in a Malian police station and that she had found out about their release from the British Broadcasting Corporation. The City Court examined the article in question and found that it was in fact issued in 2010,10 and not in 2011 as claimed by the complainant. In addition, it was not established that she was under surveillance in Georgia and receiving threatening messages, which were deleted automatically. With regard to the fact that the Malian Police allegedly asked her for money, the City Court stated that it should be 10 The State party makes reference to Caroline Duffield, “Nigerian sex slave rescue from Mali ‘fails’”, 23 December 2010, British Broadcasting Corporation News. 7