CAT/C/71/D/904/2018 implausible, given her poor medical condition, that she had been able to travel to Sweden without seeking medical help. The Migration Court also found it peculiar that the complainant could leave Ethiopia despite having been under surveillance. 4.7 The State party notes that the complainant provided conflicting statements as to the number of her brothers killed by the representatives of the Government of Ethiopia, and as to whether she had travelled with her aunt to Addis Ababa immediately after her release, or had stayed in her aunt’s house before travelling to the capital. 4.8 The State party infers that the discrepancies detected in the complainant’s account are of crucial importance. Even though she now claims that these contradictions partly result from her post-traumatic stress disorder, which caused her severe memory loss, her health status has never been cited as a reason for not being able to provide a coherent account in support of her request for asylum. In fact, there appears to be no mention of verified memory dysfunction in the report submitted by the complainant. 4.9 In the light of the foregoing, the State party finds no reason to question the conclusions reached by the domestic authorities and holds that the complainant’s substantiation of her claims is insufficient to conclude that she faces a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of ill-treatment upon her return to Ethiopia, contrary to article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 17 October 2019, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations. She maintains her arguments related to the admissibility of the complaint as presented in her initial submission. As to the merits of the complaint, she claims that, although this information does not appear in the documents, the female public defender originally assigned to her case was replaced by a man until after the Swedish Migration Agency had delivered its decision. She repeats that the interpreter too was a man. She claims that, even though she officially had the right to challenge the minutes of the hearings and raise her torture claims in the first-instance proceedings, she was unable to do so owing to her fear of men, which comes from cultural differences and the ill-treatment by men that she has experienced. 5.2 In response to the State party’s allegations concerning the death of her older brothers, she submits that she did not find the information about the death of her older brothers relevant given that they were already dead at the time of her arrest and given that her youngest brother was the only one present when the impugned incidents occurred. Regarding her alleged inconsistency about the exact time of her younger brother’s death, she submits that her brother was so severely injured that she took it for granted that he had been killed. However, while in detention, she was told that her brother was still alive, information that had never been confirmed. This is the primary reason why she has sometimes been inconsistent about the alleged death of her younger brother. 5.3 She further reiterates that she is an uneducated woman who finds it hard to contest or raise issues in settings where she feels inferior owing to her cultural background. She recalls that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and that erroneous translation may add to the slight inconsistency of her narrative. 5.4 She further points out that, although the national authorities accepted that she had been subjected to torture, they concluded at the same time that it has not been shown that this was indeed connected to her perceived political opinion, without, however, putting forward any plausible explanation for how they consider the complainant to have sustained her injuries. In addition, it has been highlighted in her medical report, based on an assessment conducted in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, that she insisted on the importance of meeting with female professionals owing to her distrust of men. In spite of this fact, several men were present during the court hearing before the Migration Court, which may raise doubts as to the fairness of the proceedings because, procedurally speaking, the complainant’s special needs have never been addressed. This is all the more problematic because these claims have been examined only by the Migration Court as the complainant was afraid of raising her torture claims any earlier in the proceedings. In this respect, the Migration Court’s assessment and the fairness of the proceedings could never be challenged since the Migration Court of Appeal did not grant her request for leave to appeal. 5