CAT/C/20/D/61/1996 page 6 with article 3 of the Convention. The risk must be substantiated having regard to the circumstances and in particular to the asylum seekers' personal conditions. 7.5 In respect of its assessment whether or not the authors would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture when returned to Zaire, the State party relies on the evaluation of the facts and evidence made by its immigration board and the Appeals Board, which have decided that there are no impediments to deporting the authors to Zaire. In particular, the Board considered that the PRP, the political party of which X claimed to be a sympathizer, was now allowed in Zaire and that he was of no particular interest to the Zairian authorities. Regarding his sister, the Board was uncertain of her identity, and noted that the medical statement submitted did not exclude that the findings could have other explanations than those claimed. Finally, Y had never been politically active and did not submit any medical evidence to substantiate her claims of having been subjected to torture. 7.6 The State party further points out that the authors' stories contain many inconsistencies and questionable information. Z changed her account of political involvement on several occasions (not being involved, recruiting new members, and later being vice-treasurer). The account of the circumstances of the arrest of X and Z also differed, and they also submitted conflicting information about how they travelled to Sweden. There is also conflicting information about when X left Zaire, and the State party points out that X and his sister have indicated different languages as their mother tongue. 7.7 In the State party's view there is a general lack of credibility attached to the information which the authors of the communication have submitted to the Swedish authorities. The State party seriously questions whether the authors are not abusing the system set up under the Convention against Torture. The State party submits that it has not been possible to ascertain any of the facts invoked by the authors in support of their applications for asylum. In view of the fact that the authors carried no valid travel documents when arriving in Sweden, it cannot be excluded, according to the State party, that they had been residing somewhere else in Europe before entering Sweden. The State party submits that it would have been possible for X and Z to remain in Germany awaiting the examination of their application for asylum in that country. 7.8 The State party therefore maintains that the authors have not substantiated that they would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture if they were to return to Zaire. It has not been substantiated that they are wanted by the Zairian authorities or that they would be of particular interest to those authorities. The risk they will run if returning to Zaire is not significantly greater than for the population in general in Zaire. The State party further emphasizes that the authors are free to leave Sweden in order to go to some other country where they can obtain a residence permit. 7.9 The State party concludes that the authors have not shown the existence of substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture if the expulsion order were to be carried out. In this context, the State party points out that no sufficient evidence has been