CAT/C/30/D/198/2002 page 7 4.16 The State party, in relation to the petitioner’s personal risk in the event of his return to Sudan, notes that the current human rights situation in Sudan, though a cause of concern, does not provide substantial grounds for believing that all Sudanese are in general in danger of being subjected to torture. The State party refers to the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ country reports and to the Committee’s jurisprudence. 4.17 For the State party, the fact the petitioner was a lawyer and a member of the DUP, does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for assuming that if he were returned to Sudan, he would be in danger of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. The State party invokes the country reports of the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to above. Though complete freedom for activists of political parties has yet to arrive, there are no longer any cases of detention lasting longer than a day, or other serious abuse. Furthermore, in response to the “Motherland Call” and the proclamation of an amnesty, important members of the northern opposition have returned to Sudan. 4.18 In the State party’s opinion, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner would run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured if returned to his country of origin. There remained some doubt as to the credibility of the petitioner’s allegations that the authorities harbour ill will towards him and his family, because his brother-in-law participated in a coup attempt on 23 September 1989. The State party argues that it is not aware of a coup attempt on that date; all its reports stated that a coup took place on 30 June 1989, under the leadership of Lieutenant-General al-Bashir, since then the President of Sudan. The State party argues that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim that his problems with the authorities in 1989 arose as a result of the activities of his brother-in-law, and were such that he must fear treatment in violation of the Convention. 4.19 The State party dismisses as implausible the petitioner’s allegation that he was detained from 30 January 1998 to 23 March 1998. His statements allegedly were contradictory, vague and imprecise. In particular, he gave contradictory accounts of the number of people present at his interrogations. 4.20 The petitioner was unable, according to the State party, to provide details about the prison in which he was held and, despite having been detained for over two months, could not describe his cell in any detail. The State party dismisses as implausible his statement that obstacles in the cell made it impossible for him to walk. It is unimaginable, in the State party’s opinion, that during a detention of almost two months, he would not have investigated his surroundings. He should have been able to describe his cell in more detail, at least because he alleges that food was thrown into his cell daily. 4.21 The State party voices doubts about the ease with which the petitioner claims to have been able to leave his prison. It contends that it stretches imagination that major Sudanese opponents of the regime would be detained in a prison with unlocked doors. The State party also considers it curious that the petitioner was able to leave undetected in a car that was waiting for him only 100 metres from the prison. As final conclusion, the State party considers implausible the petitioner’s account of his detention.