CAT/C/64/D/730/2016 because she was afraid. The prosecutor interrogated the Director of the Centre, who declared, among other things, that the complainant had not presented any injuries when they met and also that she had doubts as to the credibility of the rape allegations. 4.10 The State party submits that the Chief Prosecutor of the Kvemo Kartli investigation unit interrogated V.T. twice, on 4 April and 2 July 2014. V.T. denied any accusation of abuse, saying that he first met the complainant in the presence of an interpreter, then in the presence of a young woman invited by the complainant, who interpreted from Georgian to English. He also clarified that, when the complainant affirmed that she did not like Georgia, he explained that he had injuries from bullets for serving his country, but that he did not take off his clothes at any point in the interview. When the interpreter was interviewed by the prosecutor, she denied that V.T. had committed any act of violence and declared that “the one who was aggressive and excited was the complainant herself”. 4.11 The State party also submits that the Chief Prosecutor of the Kvemo Kartli investigation unit interrogated the Director of the Martkopi Centre on 26 March 2014. The Director declared that, on 3 May 2013, the complainant attacked her roommate. Staff intervened and tried to calm her down. Then the police arrived and interviewed the relevant individuals, including the complainant. On 22 May 2013, the complainant was also in conflict with her neighbours and requested the Centre to expel them. Then, when she was leaving the Centre, she wanted to take items that had been loaned to her by the Centre. L., a staff member, did not allow it. As a result, she physically assaulted him. 4.12 The prosecutor also examined the complainant’s apartment and obtained a court decision allowing access to the telephone records between the complainant and V.T. from 1 August 2013 to 8 April 2014, which revealed several interactions between them. In particular, calls and messages were made or sent from V.T.’s telephone to the complainant’s telephone on 8, 14, 19, 26, 27 and 28 August 2013. During his interrogation by the prosecutor on 2 July 2014, V.T. explained that he was investigating her case and, because she did not understand Georgian, he was calling several times with the help of his colleagues in order to explain the procedure and decisions taken or to clarify issues. 4.13 The State party then submits that, on 5 and 7 April 2014, the complainant sent to the prosecutor aggressive text messages, which contained statements such as: “I will see you in an international court. You should be ashamed of passing information to a rapist officer” and “the Georgian detective raped me and the Georgian Prosecutor’s Office is giving the detective information to cover up the rape”. The State party also alleges that the complainant deliberately obstructed the investigation. For example, when the prosecutor called her on 30 June 2014 to notify her (with the help of an interpreter) that the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Kvemo Kartli investigation unit sought to interview her on 1 July 2014, the complainant refused to cooperate with the investigation. 4.14 On 4 November 2014, the prosecutor decided to close the investigation into the complainant’s allegations of rape because neither the relevant testimonies nor an examination of the complainant’s apartment provided evidence of sexual assault. Furthermore, the relevant telephone records had been duly examined and nothing suspicious had been found. The complainant did not present any threatening text messages from V.T., claiming that she had deleted them. She also refused to cooperate further with the investigation, declaring that she did not trust the Georgian authorities. The prosecutor found that no force or threat was ever used by V.T. and even the complainant did not doubt this. The interpreter also denied any kind of threatening or suspicious acts from V.T. towards the complainant. Moreover, according to the complainant, she had thrown away all physical evidence (e.g. condoms) of the alleged rape. The prosecutor also observed that, in the past, the complainant had made false and defamatory statements and engaged in aggressive behaviour. 4.15 The State party submits that, from 1 May 2014 to 29 February 2016, the Ministry granted the complainant financial assistance amounting to approximately $5,440. The Ministry has also financed the complainant’s medical examinations as well as her medical treatment. Only for these purposes, between 1 May and 23 September 2014, the Ministry spent the equivalent of approximately $740. As a result of the Ministry-sponsored medical examination, the complainant was diagnosed with uterine myoma. After finding the 9