CAT/C/37/D/282/2005** Page 5 being stepped on repeatedly as she has described. The medical report concludes that her psychological history is consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder-Chronic. 3.3 Counsel argues that the PRRA officer did not assess the risk as the officer seemed to determine that the complainant was not credible, despite this independent physician’s report that her injuries were consistent with the information provided in her Personal Information Form. Further, counsel highlights that the PRRA officer did not determine that the warrant for the complainant’s arrest was not genuine. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 27 June 2006, the State party argues, on article 3, that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded as the complainant has not substantiated her allegations even on a prima facie basis. Her communication is based on the same story that competent domestic tribunals have determined to lack credibility and plausibility. On article 16, the complainant has made no attempt to substantiate her claim and it is therefore also inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. Apart from the complete absence of evidence on this point, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the potential aggravation of a complainant’s state of health possibly caused by deportation does not amount to the type of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by article 161. 4.2 With regard to the scope of article 3, the State party recalls that it refers to “substantial grounds” for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, and that the Committee’s General Comment on article 3 places the burden on the complainant to establish that she would be in danger of being torture. The grounds on which a claim is established must be substantial and must “go beyond mere theory or suspicion”, as confirmed by the Committee in numerous decisions. Consideration of the relevant factors leads to the conclusion that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subject to torture. In particular, her credibility is highly suspect and her claim inconsistent and implausible. There are no credible reasons to consider that she fits the personal profile of someone who would be of interest to the Iranian authorities or particularly vulnerable if returned to Iran. 4.3 With regard to the credibility and plausibility of the allegations and the Committee’s scope of review, the State party concedes that the Committee does not expect complete accuracy from the complainant. What is required is that the evidence may be considered “sufficiently substantiated and reliable” 2 . Nevertheless, important inconsistencies in the present case are “pertinent to the Committee’s deliberations as to whether the complainant would be in danger of being tortured upon return”.3 It is not the role of the Committee to 1 The State party refers to Communication No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 12 May 2004, paragraph 10.2. 2 The State party refers to Communication No. 34/1995, Aemei v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 9 May 1997, paragraph 9.6. 3 Communication No. 148/1999, A.K. v. Australia, Views adopted on 5 May 2004, paragraph 6.2; and Communication No. 106/1998, N.P. v. Australia, Views adopted on 6 May 1999, paragraph 6.6.