- 121 - The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In a letter of 7 February 2000, counsel refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in E.A. v. Switzerlandl stating that it is sufficient that “substantial grounds” in article 3 require more than a mere possibility of torture but do not need to be highly likely to occur to satisfy that provision’s conditions, and contends that the complainant fulfils this condition. 5.2 Regarding the State party’s argument that the complainant’s father did not mention in his asylum application that he had participated in the liberation of prisoners, among them the complainant, this is explained by his general scepticism towards authorities and his mental situation subsequent to his partisan life. 5.3 Furthermore, the complainant cannot document that she has been subjected to torture, including rape, as she has not undergone a medical examination in this regard. Her reluctance to submit this information to the Danish authorities is explainable by the trauma of such experiences. Counsel quotes the Committee’s jurisprudence in Kisoki v. Swedenm that “complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture and that such inconsistencies as may exist in the author’s presentation of the facts are not material and do not raise doubts about the general veracity of the author’s claims”. 5.4 Counsel submits that although Georgia has ratified the Convention, it is apparent that, in view of the ongoing persecutions of political opponents, Georgia is not observing its obligations under the Convention. 5.5 Counsel attaches a letter from the Refugee Board saying that the Board has decided to reopen the complainant’s case because of information that, if returned to Georgia, she risks deportation to Abkhasia. However, counsel submits in a further letter of 1 February 2002 that the Refugee Board’s decision of 24 January 2002 was unfavourable to the complainant. It appears from the Refugee Board’s decision that upon a general request from the State party, UNHCR responded that Georgian citizens upon return do not risk deportation to Abkhasia. Decision concerning admissibility and examination of the merits 6. 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 notes that the State party has objected to the admissibility of the complaint on the ground that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility. Considering the complainant’s submissions regarding her membership with the Zwiadists since mid-1992, her participation in different aspects of their work and her alleged experiences of being subjected to torture, compared with the existing situation of persecution of political opponents in Georgia, the Committee finds that the complainant’s allegations have crossed the threshold of admissibility, and the Committee therefore proceeds with the examination of the merits of the complaint.