CAT/C/47/D/351/2008 explain how her brother had found out about her job with the Parliament and her whereabouts several years after he had left Kinshasa. The State party adds that it would be surprising if the complainant on a mere phone call would have taken the risk of losing her employment and facing serious consequences, especially since her alleged activity was directed against the very person who had apparently offered her the post she held. Similarly, the complainant seemed unable to say just when her brother had contacted her and even appeared to contradict herself by saying at the first interview that she had not been in touch with her brothers since a final telephone call when she was 15 years old until the day of her departure, while claiming later that she had passed information to them by telephone. The State party also points out that the complainant has been unable to give any details about the information she alleges she passed on and argues that the explanation she gave, saying that she was afraid to remember, was hardly convincing. 4.2 The State party also draws attention to factual inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and her credibility. According to the State party, the information she gave about her family background rested on little evidence and did not resemble the sort of social relations that were common in Africa. For example, it appears unlikely that the complainant should have had no information about her parents’ relatives or that she should be unaware of her mother’s ethnic origin or approximate date of birth, or of her brothers’ whereabouts. The State party adds that the reasons she gives for her flight do not tally with what is common experience or logical behaviour. Thus it seems unlikely that a secret service agent would have taken the risk of warning the complainant that she was being investigated, especially in view of the situation prevailing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They suggest such doubts are only aggravated by the fact that she first said that the agent had called her, before giving a new version, according to which she had spoken to him personally. The State party points out that the complainant gave only a superficial account of her flight, without being able to say who might have helped her, who might have paid for her trip, how her departure had actually taken place or how her brothers could have set it up from Rwanda in a matter of hours. 4.3 According to the State party, the doubts raised by the complainant’s account were only made worse when, at the appeal stage, she produced a newspaper article which was clearly not authentic and the content of which was peculiar and in apparent contradiction on several points with the complainant’s own allegations. Thus, the article reports that she was constantly being followed by uniformed men, a fact she had completely omitted to mention. The article also mentions that the complainant’s parents were making enquiries, whereas they were apparently already deceased. In addition, the complainant handed the Court a confirmation by the publisher of the newspaper La Manchette of the validity of the said article, except that the confirmation was drafted on headed notepaper that did not correspond to the name of the newspaper, which was given as La Machette. The State party believes it is unlikely that the headed paper of printed media would contain such a spelling mistake. 4.4 Lastly, the State party argues that the submission at the appeal stage of a written “statement” by Mr. Luhulu Lunghe raises still further doubts. According to the State party, it is unlikely that Mr. Luhulu Lunghe would explicitly admit responsibility for a major information leak occurring in his department. They add that it would be surprising if the statement had been furnished by the very person who apparently disapproved of the complainant for passing confidential information. The fact that the document contains a reference to the article that appeared in La Manchette and which was considered a forgery casts further doubt on the reliability of the testimony. 4.5 The State party concludes that the allegations and evidence submitted by the complainant offer no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant’s return would expose her to a real, concrete and personal risk of torture. GE.12-40233 5