CAT/C/48/D/413/2010 Convention against Torture are most likely made on the basis of the same assessment as when determining refugee status under the Refugee Convention. State party’s further observations 6.1 By note verbale of 13 April 2011, the State party submitted further observations. It states that contrary to what is claimed by the complainant, the application to her case of chapter 4, section 2, in conjunction with chapter 5, section 1, of the Aliens Act provided the same protection against refoulement as the Convention against Torture. To be entitled to protection against refoulement, the reasons why the alien would risk being subjected to corporal punishment, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment were not relevant and it was not necessary that the alien be considered a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention. Furthermore, chapter 12, section 1, of the Act provides an absolute prohibition against enforcement of a decision on expulsion where there is a fair reason to assume that enforcement of the expulsion order would put the alien in danger of being sentenced to death or subjected to corporal punishment, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the intended country of return, or where there is fair reason to assume that the alien is not protected from being sent on to a third country in which he or she would be in such danger. The State party also submits that chapter 12, section 1, of the Act was adopted to ensure compliance with article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides a stronger protection against refoulement than article 3 of the Convention against Torture. The State party adds that it is evident from the initial observations of 2 September 2010 that its consideration of the present communication is based on article 3 of the Convention against Torture. 6.2 As to the burden of proof, the State party reiterates its earlier argument that it is for the complainant to show that there are substantial grounds for believing that she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in Burundi. It is only after evidence has been presented which shows that there is such a risk that the burden of proof shifts to the State party. It contests that the complainant has managed to present evidence sufficient to shift the burden of proof and submits that no actual judgement has been submitted by the complainant showing that she was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, only a document titled “proof of service of a judgment”. Further, the State party argues that the documents submitted in support of her claims are of very limited value as evidence, since they are very simple documents which are easy to produce. Additionally, the “arrest warrant” and the “notice” both lack any kind of case number or other identification. 6.3 The State party further states that the documents submitted by the complainant are claimed to be in the original. It notes in this regard that the documents consist of printed forms which have all been filled out by hand with blue ink pen and have blue stamps. The State party finds it peculiar that the complainant would have received the originals of the forms and not – as is customary – certified copies. Furthermore, the story presented by the complainant as to how she obtained the documents is highly improbable and fails to explain why there is no copy of the actual judgement if the person helping her was asked to send copies of all the documents in the court file. The State party concludes that the documents cannot be considered to substantiate the complainant’s claims. 6.4 The State party strongly contests the complainant’s assertion that she has provided a high level of detail and information to substantiate her claims and argues that, on the contrary, she has submitted a story which lacks detail and is improbable. It has been established that the complainant has knowingly submitted untruthful information to the migration authorities, which affects her general credibility. Furthermore, the information submitted by the complainant in the asylum application is contradictory, which further diminishes her credibility and the reliability of the account submitted by her. The State party maintains that the circumstances summarized in paragraphs 2.4 – 2.8 and 4.8 – 4.10 12