CAT/C/64/D/730/2016 Furthermore, the State party notes that it is frequently necessary to give asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to assessing the credibility of their statements and supporting documents. However, in the present case, the State party insists that it is unnecessary to examine the alleged violation of article 3 of the Convention because the complainant has been granted humanitarian status and she does not risk being expelled from Georgia. On the other hand, the refusal to grant the complainant refugee status was in accordance with Georgian law and the decision was rendered after an examination of the complainant’s case. As already mentioned, if the preconditions for which she was granted humanitarian status are not met, the relevant authorities shall, in accordance with the law, re-examine her humanitarian status. 4.24 As to the alleged violation of articles 12 and 13, the State party recalls that all the incidents were duly examined by the relevant authorities and that the complainant did not allege acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment before the Georgian authorities. It also recalls that the complainant had the possibility to contest the decisions to close the investigations, but she did not use that remedy. Moreover, it was the complainant who frequently obstructed the investigation, threatening the prosecutor and refusing to give a statement or testimony. As to the independence and impartiality of the persons who carried out the investigations, the State party mentions that the alleged beating of the complainant in the Martkopi Centre was investigated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is institutionally independent from the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia. Likewise, the alleged sexual abuse by the police detective, V.T., was investigated by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, which is institutionally separated and independent from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The whole process was conducted with due effectiveness and scrutiny and there were no signs of any crime. Accordingly, the investigation was closed. Thus, there was no violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 4.25 Finally, after reiterating the link between articles 14 and 1 of the Convention, the State party submits that, given that no act of torture has been committed against the complainant within the jurisdiction of Georgia, article 14 is not applicable. The State party declares that the complainant had full access to national jurisdiction, that she was granted humanitarian status and financial assistance for asylum seekers, as well as free medical examinations and medicine. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 16 March, 21 April, 1 June, 9 August, 5 September, 22 October, 7 November and 5 December 2016, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations. She requested the Committee to withdraw the interim measures and to request the State party to authorize her to leave Georgia for a third country that agrees to provide protection against torture. She alleges that the State party is still inflicting torture on her. She considers that article 3 of the Convention protects a person from being forced to stay in a country for the sole purpose of being subjected to torture and persecution. She also declares that the State party has violated the interim measures by sending immigration officers to arrest her. 5.2 The complainant declares that the State party, in collaboration with the Government of the United States, is trying to torture and assassinate her. She considers it well established that the State party is trying to sabotage her communication with the Committee. She refers to the State party as being “detrimentally and fraudulently calculated” and a “tortuous prison”. She claims that she is denied basic human rights, such as medical treatment, food, and freedom to practise her religion, associate, move, enjoy her privacy and receive correspondence. 5.3 The complainant mentions that, on 28 November 2016, “a State agent” took the keys to her apartment and attacked her brutally several times. She called the police, who refused to intervene, and then the Immigration Department. She also called the UNHCR Protection Hotline, which informed her that she should go to the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons, the Office of the Public Defender and to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office to request protection. In any event, she claims that the attacker was not arrested and that the police did not carry out a proper investigation. Instead, she claims that a detective ordered her to drop the criminal complaint. She alleges that, eventually, she was forced by the police to sign a 11