CAT/C/64/D/730/2016 considered as a contractual dispute rather than persecution. Thus, the City Court concluded that the complainant’s fears were subjective and that the refusal to grant her refugee or humanitarian status was in accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the relevant Georgian legislation. 4.5 The State party further submits that, on 29 July 2014, the complainant filed a new application before the Ministry and asked for humanitarian status, under newly discovered circumstances, as she had been diagnosed with uterine myoma. The Ministry examined her case again and, on 10 October 2014, she was granted humanitarian status. On 11 September 2015, the complainant’s humanitarian status was renewed for one year. As at the date of submission of the State party’s observations, the complainant enjoyed humanitarian status, which was valid until 28 October 2016, after which time the Ministry would consider the renewal of her status again for one year, as prescribed by Georgian law. 4.6 As to her placement in the Martkopi Reception Centre on 1 May 2013, the State party submits that the complainant received monthly financial assistance for asylum seekers and also, while in the Centre, she was twice provided with medicine, on 21 and 27 May 2013. However, while in the Centre, the complainant engaged in aggressive and strange behaviour; she was therefore offered a psychological consultation and examination, which she refused. She was also involved in several incidents with roommates and staff members who were attacked by her when they discovered that she was stealing from the Centre. She decided to leave the Centre on 8 June 2013. From January 2014, after the complainant had moved into a private property, the Ministry, in cooperation with UNHCR, granted her monthly financial assistance along with social aid for rent and other living costs. 4.7 As to the incident of 3 May 2013, an investigation was launched as the security service of the Centre had informed the police that two roommates had had a fight with each other. The police arrived immediately and interviewed the complainant and her roommate. Apparently, the complainant was listening to music on the radio while the other woman wanted to pray. The forensic examination revealed that the complainant had injured her roommate, hitting her in the face with a blunt tool. However, when the complainant and the other woman were interrogated again by the police on 22 May 2013, both of them clearly stated that their conflict was over and the dispute had been resolved peacefully. Therefore, on 28 May 2013, the investigation was closed. 4.8 As to the incident of 8 June 2013, the State party submits that, on 24 July 2013, the Office of the Public Defender informed the Chief Prosecutor’s Office that, according to the complainant’s statement, she had been beaten by a staff member of the Centre named A.G., who had also asked her for money when she was leaving. On 2 August 2013, the police started an investigation. A detective, V.T., interviewed the complainant, the two staff members involved and other occupants of the Centre. Both staff members declared that it was actually the complainant who attacked L. when he asked her to return the Centre’s belongings. This was confirmed by the records of the security service’s journal that day and also by the reception room supervisor. L. also indicated that the complainant had engaged in particularly aggressive behaviour. This was confirmed by various witnesses, including the Director of the Centre, who declared that, on 3 May 2013, the complainant had attacked and injured her roommate, and that they had had to move her into a separate room. The taxi driver who helped the complainant to leave the Centre on 8 June 2013 declared that he did not see any sign of conflict when he arrived to pick up the complainant and that he saw L. helping her to place her luggage in the car. Moreover, E.M., who, according to the complainant, was an eyewitness, did not confirm the incident. Thus, the alleged beating of the complainant on 8 June 2013 was not confirmed and a formal investigation was not initiated. 4.9 Regarding the rape allegedly perpetrated by V.T. on 14 August 2013, the State party submits that, the following day, she went to the Psycho-Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture, Violence and Pronounced Stress Impact, but did not make any reference to this event, allegedly because she was ashamed. Only after the alleged second rape did she go to the Office of the Public Defender and also to the Centre to complain. On 6 March 2014, she was assisted by UNHCR to write a statement, which was then transmitted to the law enforcement authorities. According to the State party, the complainant declared to the prosecutor that V.T. had not forced her to have sex with him, but that she did not resist 8