CAT/C/47/D/351/2008 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 24 April 2009, the complainant reiterates her earlier conclusions and asks the Committee to ignore the State party’s observations. She submits a copy of a search warrant, dated 25 January 2009, according to which the National Intelligence Agency had allegedly launched an immediate search operation against her in Kinshasa. According to the complainant, the document shows that she ran a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being exposed to treatment that violated article 3 of the Convention. This risk was supposedly due to the work she was doing in the Parliament prior to leaving the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to the sensitive State information to which she had access, and to her application for asylum in Switzerland. The complainant points out that the State party has not queried the fact that she worked for the Congolese Parliament. She stresses the importance of the statement made by the rapporteur Luhulu Lunghe and the newspaper article — despite a few formal inconsistencies — as evidence of the serious risk she would run if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Additional observations by the State party 6. On 12 May 2009, the State party reiterates its previous observations, pointing out that the complainant’s comments contain no new elements. The State party contends that the search warrant submitted by the complainant is clearly a forgery. According to the State party, it is unlikely that such a warrant should have been issued in January 2009, considering that by then the complainant had been gone from the Democratic Republic of the Congo for almost four years. It would also be inconsistent for the Congolese authorities to issue a search warrant in Kinshasa when, according to the complainant, they were quite aware that she had applied for asylum in Switzerland. Additional comments by the complainant 7. On 24 May 2009, the complainant states that the State party’s argument that the search warrant is a forgery is based on mere supposition lacking any objectivity. According to the complainant, the warrant is valid both in form and in substance. She asserts that she obtained a copy of it through an acquaintance with whom she stayed in touch and who kept her informed of the risk she ran in the event of return. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8. Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee further notes that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party does not contest admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee finds the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration on the merits 9.1 The Committee must ascertain whether the return of the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 6 GE.12-40233