CAT/C/64/D/730/2016 appropriate hospital, the complainant was offered free surgery by the Ministry, but she refused it. As regards admissibility and the merits 4.16 As far as the admissibility of the complaint is concerned, the State party submits that it is manifestly unfounded and that the complainant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.17 The State party considers that the complainant’s allegations are false and represent an abuse of the right of submission and should be rejected in accordance with rule 113 (b) of the rules of procedure. The complainant did not present any appropriate documentation or information to prove the alleged violations. The relevant national authorities have examined and duly investigated all her allegations, and she was able to challenge the Ministry’s decisions before the Administrative Court. Finally, when she met the necessary conditions prescribed by the law, she was granted humanitarian status. 4.18 The State party reiterates the above-mentioned information as to the investigations by the police and the prosecutor into her allegations, which have proven that her allegations of abuse at the reception centre and rape by detective V.T. were false. The complainant has also presented false allegations with regard to her financial assistance, as she received more financial assistance than any other asylum seeker and her monthly allowance was at least twice as much as a regular pension in Georgia. The complainant also had all appropriate medical examinations and medicine fully covered by the Ministry. 4.19 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party declares that the complainant was able, under article 106 (1 bis) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to challenge the prosecutor’s decision to close the investigation, first before the prosecutor’s superior and then before the courts. Moreover, no investigation was held into allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment because the complainant did not claim that she had been a victim of torture. 4.20 As to the merits, the State party asserts that the complainant claimed factual circumstances that was false and incoherent. The State party asserts that there is no basis to find a violation of articles 1, 2 (1), 3, 12, 13, 14 or 16 of the Convention. 4.21 As to the alleged violation of article 1 or article 16, the State party submits that there were no acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment imposed on the complainant within the jurisdiction of Georgia. All her allegations were duly investigated and showed no sign of any crime having been committed. There was also no violation of article 2 (1) of the Convention, given that the complainant has never claimed before the relevant Georgian authorities that she was a victim of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the jurisdiction of Georgia. 4.22 Regarding an alleged violation of article 3, the State party recalls that the complainant currently enjoys humanitarian status and, therefore, there has been no decision made on her alleged expulsion. She was not granted refugee status because an asylum seeker’s statements on the reasons for seeking asylum are assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, including general background material on the situation and conditions in the country of origin, in particular whether systematic gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights occur. The background material is obtained from various sources, including country reports prepared by other Governments, and information available from UNHCR and prominent non-governmental organizations.11 In the present case, the Ministry and the courts duly examined all the information provided by the complainant in her application for asylum, but found that her subjective fears had no objective grounds. 4.23 Acknowledging the jurisprudence of the Committee that states that the risk of torture in the country of origin does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, but must be foreseeable, real, personal and present, the State party recalls that it is, in principle, for the complainant to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure complained of were to be implemented, he or she would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention. 11 10 Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark (CAT/C/51/D/429/2010), para. 4.7.