CAT/C/54/D/490/2012 submitted to the Immigration Service. The complainant could have presented the report of the psychotherapist of 28 November 2011 to the Supreme Administrative Court, as it was produced before the leave to appeal was refused, but she failed to do so. 4.7 Regarding the complainant’s allegations about interpretation problems during the proceedings before the Immigration Service and the Administrative Court, the State party argues that this allegation lacks credibility on the following grounds. The complainant wrote her request for asylum herself in Lingala and indicated Lingala as her language. During the interrogation arranged by the police on 14 March 2010, she reported that her mother tongue was Kintandu and that she also spoke Lingala and some French. As mentioned in the record of the Immigration Service interview, which was in Lingala, the complainant confirmed that she understood what the interpreter was saying. The author was explicitly requested to tell the interviewer if she did not understand the questions posed to her. The record of an interview in the Immigration Service of 7 July 2010 indicates that the complainant was asked detailed questions about her contacts with MLC and activities in the party. The complainant answered that she was not a member of MLC, that she only attended a party meeting as a silent supporter, that she was given a membership card only when travelling to Dongo and that she was wearing MLC clothes, which were distributed to people, without any political motive. The Government notes that the complainant did not mention any problems caused by interpretation in her appeals to the Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 With regard to the State party’s statement that the complainant had submitted only one medical report to the Immigration authorities, on 9 September 2012 the complainant submitted that the medical report of 2 June 2010 recorded her physical injuries and emphasized the need for her mental health to be regularly monitored. Additionally, the complainant noted that, at the interview with the Finnish Immigration Service on 7 July 2010 she had told the authorities about the serious harm and torture she had suffered when captured by the soldiers. In particular, the complainant mentioned that she was imprisoned in a pit in the ground and raped repeatedly. The complainant referred to European Council Directive 2004//83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights5 in claiming that the burden of proof shifts from the complainant to the State when the complainant has already suffered serious harm or torture prior to flight. Taking into account the fact that the claimant recounted her experience of torture to the authorities and supported her story with a medical statement, the burden of proof has shifted to the Finnish authorities. 5.2 The complainant also stated that she experienced significant difficulties in obtaining a referral to a specialized doctor. During the proceedings at the Immigration Service, she complained to a nurse about the pain and weakness she was experiencing, but was not referred to a psychiatrist. The Immigration Service did not consider it necessary for her to consult a gynaecologist. The complainant was referred to a psychologist only after moving to another reception centre in November 2011. Her legal counsel tried to obtain an appointment for her with a psychiatrist, but as the nurse responsible for the complainant did not think it necessary, the reception centre concluded it would not pay for the consultation. 5 6 See, in particular, European Court of Human Rights, case of R.C. v. Sweden, judgement of 9 March 2010 (application No. 41827/07).