CAT/C/37/D/262/2005 Page 6 husband and the second, as a result of her reporting the first rape to the authorities. She fears that her return would come immediately to the knowledge of the police and that she would be ill-treated again, or even raped. In order to support the claims that she was raped in 2002, she sent to the Committee a medical report dated 4 July 2002 of the 7th urban polyclinic in Minsk. For the State party, it is surprising that the complainant did not present this essential piece of evidence in the ordinary procedure, nor in the procedure for revision before the ARK. According to the complainant, because she was expecting a new interview, she sent this medical report only after reception of the decision of the ARK of 1 December 2004. The State party does not consider this explanation to be convincing. It notes that, on the one hand, the ARK asked the complainant to specify her request for revision and to make it more substantial, and that, on the other hand, the complainant herself replied that she found it necessary to provide the required information in writing. In these circumstances, the State party recalls that the complainant and her husband provided false and/or falsified means of evidence in the ordinary asylum procedure, and that the husband’s claim of persecution was considered not credible by the national authorities. It considers that the medical report cannot support the rape allegation. 6.4 According to General Comment No.1, the complainant’s previous political activities in the country of origin must be taken into in order to assess the risk of her being subjected to torture upon return to that country. The State party notes that the complainant has not been politically active in Belarus. The sole political activities which were invoked were those of her husband who allegedly stood in the local elections in 1995 and 2000, and criticised the Head of State. The State party concludes that the complainant has not established that she would face a risk of torture because of her own political activities. 6.5 With regard to the credibility of the complainant, the State party notes that she mentions grounds not invoked before the national authorities during the asylum procedure, and that she made reference to the sexual abuses by the police only in her request for revision of 11 October 2004. On explicit request from the ARK, she completed her request for revision on 21 October 2004. It is only on this occasion that she specified that members of the police raped her several times in 2002 and that she was subsequently seriously threatened by the police, notably because she reported the crime. The complainant has never supported her allegations with evidence. According to the complainant, she did not dare mentioning the rapes during the ordinary procedure because her husband forbade her to talk about them. The State party argues that, even though this explanation could be accepted for the period preceding the complainant’s separation from her husband, it cannot be considered as convincing for the subsequent period. In particular, it cannot explain why the complainant did not provide any evidence to the ARK during the revision procedure. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the complainant and her husband to support their claims during the asylum procedure were essentially false and/or falsified. In the light of the above, the State party doubts the authenticity of the medical report provided in the present procedure only on 12 March 2005. 6.6 Finally, the State party submits that the complainant’s claims are full of factual inconsistencies, which undermines her credibility. According to her, the rapes she was subjected to in 2002 had a direct link with the political activities of her husband. However, the national authorities have found the allegations related to her husband’s persecution not to be credible. Since the complainant has always claimed that her husband’s activities were the sole cause for her own persecution, these allegations are without any basis.