CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012 immigration detention have now been exhausted, the author wishes to add a new claim of an additional violation by the State party of her rights under article 7 of the Covenant, on the grounds that such detention constitutes inhuman treatment owing to her previous detention and torture in China, the trauma of which has been revived by her detention in Denmark. 5.2 The author further submits that the Danish authorities have never doubted that she belonged to Falun Gong and accepted as facts her statements as regards her detention by the Chinese police because of her practice of Falun Gong. Despite the fact that she consented to an examination for signs of torture, such an examination was never carried out. 6 5.3 As to the State party’s argument that it was only on 29 March 2012 that the author told the Danish Immigration Service for the first time that she was allegedly wanted by the Chinese authorities at the time of her departure, the author submits that she did not mention this information to the police who apprehended her in November 2011, because she was not asked the question by the police. Since the police are not in charge of asylum applications, it was not the role of the police to seek such information. The author adds that since the Danish Centre against Human Trafficking does not deal with asylum applications either, she was under no obligation to mention at the interview with them on 18 November 2011 that she was wanted by the Chinese authorities at the time of her departure. 5.4 In response to the State party’s argument that the present communication is manifestly ill-founded and should therefore be declared inadmissible (see paras. 4.7 and 4.16 above), the author reiterates that it is admissible for the reasons explained in her initial submission and that the State party has failed to substantiate its claim as to why it should be considered manifestly ill-founded. 5.5 As to the facts on which the present communication is based, the author submits, with reference to her statements during the asylum proceedings, that during her first detention period in China she was asked to sign a statement declaring that Falun Gong was a “harmful movement”. She was asked to do the same during her second detention. Having been subjected to torture in the course of her third detention, the author eventually signed a statement, declaring that Falun Gong was a subversive movement and committing not to carry out any activities for it at any time in the future. For that reason, she was no longer able to openly perform her Falun Gong activities. She therefore did not practise Falun Gong in public from 2007 until her departure from China in 2010, because she was afraid to do so and not because she no longer believed in Falun Gong. The author submits that, contrary to what is claimed by the State party (see paras. 4.4 and 4.10 above), she has “broken with Falun Gong” not of her free will but owing to the violence and inhuman treatment to which she was subjected by the Chinese authorities. Although she was afraid to practise Falun Gong activities after having been detained, she believed that she had to fight for her convictions. The author adds that, whereas for her Falun Gong is a religious conviction, the Chinese authorities also take it as a political conviction, which is in opposition to the Communist Party. 5.6 The author further submits that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board not to reopen her asylum proceedings was signed by a staff member of the Board’s secretariat, rather than by a member of the Board itself, and that it simply reproduced the errors and misinterpretations from the impugned decision of the Board of 15 August 2012. The author also points to a number of inaccuracies in how that decision of the Board was misrepresented by a staff member of the Board’s secretariat who examined her request to reopen asylum proceedings. For instance, whereas the Board accepted that Falun Gong was the author’s faith and only questioned why she should be subjected to persecution by the 6 The author refers to Committee against Torture communication No. 464/2011, K.H. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2012, paras. 5.10, 5.11 and 8.8. 7