CAT/C/64/D/730/2016 a positive result and allegedly no investigation was carried out. 8 She was even humiliated while being questioned by the Rustavi District Prosecutor’s Office regarding the rape incident. Investigators from the Prosecutor’s Office retaliated for reporting the rape by entering her apartment while she was out, tampering and damaging her computer, following her, and intimidating and harassing her. The police also threatened her neighbours. She reported the incident to the UNHCR Protection Unit, but they did not provide any response. 2.17 On 24 January 2014, the Ministry dismissed the complainant’s request for refugee and humanitarian status given the lack of evidence of persecution in her own country. The Ministry did not consider her allegations that she had been threatened by staff from the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons. The Ministry also noticed that the complainant had refused to disclose her email correspondence with the Nigerian Ambassador. The Ministry determined instead that her problems in Mali had resulted from a financial disagreement between the complainant and local officials regarding the compensation for the costs she incurred in sheltering the alleged victims of trafficking from Nigeria. 2.18 On 1 March 2014, UNHCR sent the complainant to a clinic, where she was given a prescription for pain medication. The prescription was sent to the Ministry, which insulted and threatened her and refused to give her the medicine until UNHCR intervened again on 14 March 2014. When she took the tablets, she felt ill, but the Ministry refused to take her to hospital because of lack of funds. In a medical test carried out by UNHCR in Tbilisi in July 2014, the complainant was diagnosed with uterine cancer, which was spreading to other areas of her body. She notes that most asylum seekers at the Martkopi Reception Centre have fallen sick with cancer and other fatal diseases. 2.19 On 5 March 2014, the complainant lodged a complaint with the department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs that dealt with police misconduct to report and request an investigation into the rape and threats to her life perpetrated by the police officer V.T. On 14 March 2014, her complaint was transmitted to the Rustavi District Prosecutor’s Office for criminal investigation. On 21 March 2014, the complainant was summoned for interrogation by the prosecutor. During the meeting, the prosecutor was allegedly very aggressive towards the complainant and humiliated her. In particular, the complainant offered to describe identifying marks on V.T.’s body, but the prosecutor refused. On 5 April 2014, the prosecutor came to inspect the complainant’s apartment and, on 8 July 2014, the complainant was invited again to the prosecutor’s office, but thereafter she received no information on the investigation. 2.20 In April 2014, the complainant reported obstruction of justice by the Rustavi District Prosecutor’s Office to the Division of Human Rights Protection of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. However, she was not informed about the follow-up to her complaint. 2.21 On 8 May 2014, Tbilisi City Court rejected the complainant’s appeal against the Ministry’s decision to deny her request for asylum, based on the fact that she had not proved the alleged persecution in her country of origin. That judgment was upheld by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 24 November 2014 and then by the Supreme Court on 22 October 2015. 2.22 On 7 July 2014, the complainant complained to the Chief Prosecutor of Georgia and to the Rustavi District Prosecutor about the handling of her case by the Rustavi District Prosecutor’s Office and requested the investigative records of her case. On 27 July 2014, she was informed by the prosecutor handling her case (para. 2.19) that she had no right to any information regarding the investigation or the police report. 8 On 19 November 2013, the Public Defender received a letter from the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ General Inspection Department, which stated that: “Mr. V.T. is not registered as an employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against him.” However, the complainant pretends that she provided the Public Defender with V.T.’s telephone number. The Public Defender’s staff called him, and V.T. admitted that he was a police officer employed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and also that an investigation was ongoing. On 14 January 2014 or 21 August 2014, she was informed by the Public Defender that her case was closed. 5