CAT/C/47/D/347/2008 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 5.1 In a communication dated 26 March 2009, the complainant argues that the State party has recognized a pattern of consistent human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and that this situation has a direct impact on the risks that she would face if she returned. She also refers to objective fears that arose after her escape, particularly in view of the threats allegedly received by her mother. She reiterates that the newspaper articles that she has provided constitute objective evidence of the risks faced. She maintains that she currently carries out political activities within APARECO aimed at raising awareness and spreading a political message. Her name and face have thus become familiar to the Congolese community in Switzerland and, as a result, to the Congolese authorities. 5.2 The complainant maintains that she did not mention the rape she suffered to the Swiss authorities because it had been a traumatic experience that she was unable to disclose at that time. She adds that her current state of health is an important factor that should be taken into consideration in assessing the risks which she faces in the event of deportation, including the risk of suicide. Lastly, the complainant requests that the specific risks faced by women be taken into account by the Committee and maintains that her political activities in Switzerland expose her to real danger if returned to her country. Additional submissions by the complainant 6.1 On 15 April 2010 the complainant informed the Committee that she had applied for a residence permit on grounds of “serious personal hardship”, under article 14 (2) of the Asylum Act.4 The Federal Office for Migration rejected the initial application dated 13 January 2010 and rejected it on appeal on 12 February 2010, the main reason being that the complainant did not meet the conditions listed in article 14 (2) of the Asylum Act; she had lived in Switzerland for only eight years and had not demonstrated that she was sufficiently integrated socially, professionally and family-wise in the country. The Office also noted that there was no indication that the complainant could not successfully reintegrate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country she did not leave until she was 27 years old. 6.2 On 15 October 2010, the complainant further informed the Committee that in January 2010 she had filed an appeal against the last decision of the Federal Office for Migration, cited above. On 14 May 2010, the Federal Administrative Court denied her application for legal aid in relation to this appeal and instructed her to pay the procedural fees. On 29 June 2010, the Federal Office for Migration presented a submission to the Court relating to the procedure undertaken by the complainant under article 14 (2) of the Asylum Act, reiterating that the complainant had not sufficiently integrated into Swiss society and that she had no close ties binding her with Switzerland. On 1 July 2010, the Court instructed the complainant to submit her comments by 16 August 2010, which she did.5 4 5 6 Article 14 (2) of the Federal Asylum Act (26 June 1998) stipulates that: “The canton may with consent of the Federal Office grant a person for whom it is responsible in terms of this Act a residence permit if: (a) The person concerned has been a resident for a minimum of five years in Switzerland since filing the asylum application; (b) The place of stay of the person concerned has always been known to the authorities; and (c) In light of their advanced stage of integration, there is a case of serious personal hardship.” The complainant enclosed her submission to the Court dated 18 August 2010 as an annex. GE.12-40160