CAT/C/46/D/379/2009 she would still be of interest to the authorities upon her return to DRC, in view of the fact that she left the country in 2006. 4.22 In conclusion, the State party submits that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfills the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal, and thus her return would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The complainant has failed to substantiate her allegations and the complaint should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded. Should the Committee consider that the complaint is admissible, the State party contends that it reveals no violation of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 By letter of 15 February 2010, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. She contends that the existence of the parish of Nouvelle Cité de David, as well as of a pastor named Albert Lukusa, now deceased, was attested to by the Swedish embassy in Kinshasa. The embassy also confirmed that in DRC a person cannot obtain identity documents without personal appearance. As to the State party’s contention that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for lack of substantiation, the author maintains that she adduced written evidence in support of her allegations, including two medical reports issued by a psychotherapist who concluded that she shows signs of depression due to the abuses endured in her home country, suffers from sleeping difficulties and is still affected by the continued rape she endured during her imprisonment. The psychotherapist also indicated that the complainant fears for her life if she were to return to DRC, and started to consume large quantities of alcohol in order to allay her anxiety. The complainant maintains that her claim is supported by written evidence and the general information on the human rights situation in DRC, and recalls the information submitted by the State party on the human rights abuses that are being committed in DRC. She claims that there is a risk of torture upon return to DRC that goes beyond mere theory or suspicion. The risk must be considered highly probable, taking into account that she was already imprisoned and exposed to torture and other forms of ill-treatment. She further submits that the burden of proof for establishing a breach of article 3 of the Convention is initially on the complainant, but recalls that, if the author has provided a certain level of detail and information, the burden of proof may then shift to the State party. She was exposed to torture by persons acting in an official capacity due to her religious/political beliefs and because the pastor with whom she worked openly criticized the authorities and the regime. 5.2 The complainant questions the State party’s statement that the migration authorities apply the same kind of test as the Committee when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act, claiming that the authorities’ assessment is characterized by the refugee status determination in accordance with the Refugee Convention, not the Convention against Torture. 5.3 With respect to the State party’s questioning of her credibility and the fact that no documents were provided to prove her identity, the complainant submits that, according to article 196 of the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees8 8 Article 196: “It is a general legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the person submitting a claim. Often, however, an applicant may not be able to support his statements by documentary or other proof, and cases in which an applicant can provide evidence of all his statements will be the exception rather than the rule. In most cases a person fleeing from persecution will have arrived with the barest necessities and very frequently even without personal documents. Thus, while the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is 10