CAT/C/30/D/198/2002 page 10 7.5 The Committee further notes the State party’s remarks that the petitioner failed to give any information on the conditions of detention in a so-called “ghost house”, and that he failed to describe the cell in which he alleges to have been detained for several weeks. The petitioner has not responded to these arguments other than by noting that it is insufficient for the State party to manifest “some doubts” about the credibility of his statements. The Committee also notes that the petitioner failed to respond to the doubts voiced by the State party concerning the ease with which he claims to have been able to leave the prison. 7.6 The Committee finally notes the State party’s observations on the evolution of the political system in Sudan over the last few years, in particular the legalization of the political parties, the presidential amnesty of political refugees of 3 June 2000, and the “Motherland Call” under which important members of the opposition have returned to Sudan. The Committee notes that the petitioner has not challenged any of these arguments in his comments. 7.7 On the basis of the above, the Committee considers that the information made available by the petitioner does not show that substantial grounds exist for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture in the event of his return to Sudan. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is of the view that the return of the petitioner to Sudan by the State party would not constitute a violation to article 3 of the Convention by the Netherlands. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] Notes 1 Preliminary, the State party informs the Committee that although on 1 April 2001, a new Aliens Act entered into force that has no consequences of substance for the petitioner’s situation. 2 The State party declares, however, that a Legal Uniformity Division exists within the Hague District Court, in order to promote consistency in the application of the law in asylum cases and other proceedings involving aliens. 3 The reports on the situation in countries of origin are issued, using information of non-governmental organizations and reports received by the Dutch diplomatic missions. 4 The State party explains that this type of policy is known in the Netherlands as categorical protection (categoriale bescherming). 5 The State party recalls the Committees’ Views in communications No. 91/1997, A. v. Netherlands, and No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland. 6 The State party refers to the Committee’s Views in communication No. 28/1995, E.A. v. Switzerland.