CAT/C/53/D/458/2011 the complainant were found to be typical for someone exposed to the described maltreatment. The complainant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, registering a score of 3.4 on the basis of the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire. 1 The report included that the complainant had not brought up allegations of torture previously, possibly owing to her more recent trauma caused by the rapes in connection with the escape from her country. The report also noted that the complainant seemed to have been ignorant of the possible significance to the asylum case of her political activities, imprisonment and torture. 2.6 The complainant claims that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to conduct a medical examination requested by her in October 2008. 2.7 The complainant submits that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 4 March 2010 is final. The Immigration Service decision of 10 February 2011 not to extend the date of the complainant’s departure is also final and cannot be appealed, and thus all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that her deportation by the State party would be a violation of article 3 of the Convention, since she risks torture in Ethiopia. The complainant alleges that such risk exists because she has already been tortured and that the authorities will torture her again in order to gain new information on her and others’ activities in connection to the Oromo Liberation Front.2 3.2 The complainant submits that the refusal of the Refugee Appeals Board in October 2008 to carry out medical examination regarding her torture and its subsequent refusal of 4 March 2010 to accept as new evidence the Amnesty International medical group report of 2 June 2009 were in violation of article 3 of the Convention. By refusing to reopen the case, the Refugee Appeals Board denied the complainant a possibility to present new evidence in her case. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 27 September 2011 the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits. It requested the Committee to declare the complaint manifestly unfounded pursuant to article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention and therefore inadmissible owing to the failure by the complainant to establish a prima facie case that she would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Ethiopia. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainant is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the circumstances of her asylum claim reassessed. In this regard, the State party refers to paragraph 9 of general comment No. 1 of the Committee, which states that, when exercising its jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, the Committee will give considerable weight to findings of fact made by agencies of the State party concerned. The State party further states that the decision on the present case was made by the Refugee Appeals Board, which is a collegiate body of a quasi-judicial nature, on the basis of a procedure during which the complainant had the opportunity to present her views, both in writing and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel. 1 2 4 A score of 2.5 is consistent with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. See communications No. 339/2008, Amini v. Denmark, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 322/2007, Eveline Njamba and her daughter Kathy Balikosa v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010; and No. 349/2008, Mükerrem Güclü v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 November 2010.