CAT/C/46/D/379/2009 complainant would only violate article 3 if she could show that she would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the said provision. 4.14 The State party submits, with reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, that for the purposes of article 3, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she is to be returned. It also recalls that, according to the General Comment No. 1, it is for the complainant to present an arguable case, i.e. to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account of events. The State party further states that the Swedish migration authorities apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act as the Committee will apply when examining a complaint under the Convention. It notes that the national authority conducting the asylum interview is in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to evaluate the credibility of his or her claims. In the present case, it is noteworthy that the Migration Board made its decision after having held three interviews with the complainant and gathered sufficient information, which ensured that it had a solid basis for its assessment of the complainant’s need for protection in Sweden. Therefore, as concerns the merits of the complaint, the State party relies on the decisions of the Migration Board and the Migration Court and on the reasoning set out therein. 4.15 The State party maintains that the complainant’s statement as to the reasons why she left DRC and applied for asylum in Sweden is not credible, accordingly her claim under article 3 is not substantiated. It contends that no documents have been adduced to prove the complainant’s identity. She stated during one of the interviews that no one in Sweden or DRC can verify her identity, her argument being in contradiction with the information provided by the complainant’s counsel on 22 September 2006, namely that the complainant’s parents and siblings still reside in DRC in the village of Mushenge, in the Kasai Occidental province. If that were the case, it would be possible for the complainant to obtain new identification documents with the assistance of her relatives or, at least, contact them in order to verify her identity, but she has made no such attempts. The State party holds that the fact that the complainant has not exhausted all possibilities to prove or at least to try to verify her identity weakens the general credibility of her submission. She also has not submitted any document to prove her membership in the parish, and it seems very unlikely that she would be unable to obtain such documentation, considering her claim that she was active in the parish and the members of it arranged her escape from prison and paid for her travel to Sweden. 4.16 With reference to the email correspondence between the complainant’s counsel and the Swedish embassy in Kinshasa, the State party submits that the embassy confirmed that a man named Albert Lukusa used to be the pastor of the parish of Nouvelle Cité de David in Lubumbashi, before passing away in 2004. However, it recalls that the complainant informed the Migration Board that the pastor’s name was Albert Lusaka (and not Lukusa). This is also the name that the complainant’s counsel referred to during the third interview and in the submission of 7 September 2007 to the Migration Court. Thus, the State party finds it unlikely that a person who has worked closely with the pastor would be mistaken about his name. Furthermore, the complainant’s statements that she grew up in Mbuji-Mayi in the central part of the DRC, and lived in Lubumbashi in the southern part of the country before coming to Sweden contradict the conclusion of the language analysis, according to which she has been socialized in Kinshasa, i.e. in the eastern part of DRC. In respect to the medical reports adduced by the complainant, indicating that she suffers from back pain, shows signs of depression and sought medical aid due to traumatic experiences in her home country, the State party submits that her allegations that these health problems are a consequence of the ill-treatment she endured in her country are based solely on her own word. The fact that the medical reports only contain a very general description of her symptoms makes them inconclusive when it comes to determining the cause of her health 8