CAT/C/37/D/262/2005 Page 9 to conduct prompt, impartial and full investigations into claims of torture, and the absence of an independent judiciary.6 The Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women has noted the increasing number of reports of violence against women including rape in Belarus, and the “rather frequent” reports of abuse, including sexual attacks, by female detainees.7 According to data released by the Belarus Ministry of Labor and Social Security in 2004, over 20 percent of women reported experiencing sexual abuse at least once. In the first ten months of the year 2005, the Ministry of Interior reported a 17 percent increase in reports of rape from the year before.8 8.5 The Committee recalls its General Comment on article 3, which states that the Committee is to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of torture if returned, and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The risk need not be highly probable, but it must be personal and present. 8.6 As to the State party’s assertion that the earlier finding that some of the original documents submitted in the joint asylum application were falsified, and that this undermines the complainant’s credibility, the Committee considers that the evidence that the husband, and not the complainant, was in control of what was presented in support of the original joint asylum application, cuts against attributing responsibility to her for such defects on this basis alone. As to the State party’s claim that the medical report from the hospital summarizing and supporting the allegation of rape is also falsified, the Committee notes that the State party concluded this on the sole ground that the earlier documents submitted by the husband in support on the joint asylum application were deemed to be falsified (see para.6.5 above) and has not adduced any further evidence or argument to support this claim. Noting that the date and the detailed information about the severe injury to the complainant’s sexual organs by insertion of blunt objects contained in the medical report from Belarus correspond to the information contained in her submissions, the Committee does not question the authenticity of this document. 8.7 As to the State party’s argument that the complainant has not established that she would face a risk of torture because of her own political activities, the Committee observes that while the complainant is now separated from her husband, this will not prevent the authorities from harming her. This complainant has explained that she participated in distributing preelection propaganda when in Belarus. The complainant is now separated but not divorced from her husband; to the authorities, she remains a source of contact and a means of pressuring him. Moreover, according to a recent US State Department Human Rights Country Report, cases of harassment of divorced women because of their former husband’s activities are not unknown in Belarus. 9 In any case, while the complainant contends that she was 6 See Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture: Belarus, 20 November 2000 (A/56/44, paras.40-46), para.45(d). 7 See the Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Radhika Coomaraswamy: international, regional and national developments in the area of violence against women (1994-2003), E/CN.4/2003/75/Add.1, 27 February 2003, para.1901. 8 As cited in the US Department of State Country Report on human rights practices (2005), 8 March 2006. 9 See the US Department of State Country Report on human rights practices (2005), 8 March 2006.