CAT/C/30/D/198/2002 page 8 4.22 The State party concludes that, in its opinion, the inconsistencies in the petitioner’s presentation of the facts are material and raise doubts about the veracity of his claims; these inconsistencies are related to essential aspects of the reasons given by him for leaving Sudan. The State party believes that there were sufficient grounds for regarding it as implausible that the Sudanese authorities harbour ill will towards him and that, as a result, he would, on returning to Sudan, be in danger of torture, or that the grounds for this belief are substantial in a way that such danger would be personal and present. 4.23 The State party contends that even if credence was given to the petitioner’s statements regarding his problems in connection with his activities for the DUP within the lawyers’ union, this does not justify the conclusion that he would undergo treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if he were now to return to Sudan. The State party notes that it does not find it plausible that the Sudanese authorities were fully aware of the petitioner’s individual political activities given that they were carried out under cover of the lawyers’ union. The State party notes also that according to the petitioner’s own statements, he was never personally arrested or ill-treated (in its own home town, for instance) by the authorities. His arrests took place once in the context of intervention by the police during a large-scale disruption of public order and once because he had violated a travel ban. 4.24 The State party further concludes that given the general situation in Sudan and the personal circumstances of the petitioner, there is no reason to conclude that substantial grounds exist for believing that the petitioner would run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon his return in Sudan. The petitioner’s comments 5.1 In his comments on the State party’s observations of 22 December 2002, the petitioner notes the State party’s expression of some doubts about the credibility of his statements, and argues that “some” doubts is insufficient to contest the credibility of his statements. He challenges the State party’s doubts about the credibility of his statements related to his detention from 30 January 1998 to 23 March 1998. He notes that the State party does not contest his involvement in the demonstration on 30 January 1998, and declares that the contradictions pointed out by the State party are minor ones. He dismisses the State party’s observations as speculative because it did not take into consideration that he was detained in a “ghost house” which is not a normal detention facility, and information on such “ghost houses” is not readily available. He objects that the State party did not take into consideration the circumstances under which he was detained and the fact that he was at that time already a victim of previous acts of torture. 5.3 According to the petitioner, the State party has not expressed before, explicit doubts about the credibility of his statements concerning his first, second and third detentions. The petitioner views his statements as detailed, consistent and without contradictions. 5.4 The petitioner contests the State party’s conclusion in paragraph 4.24 above. He recalls that, first, since the lawyers’ union elections were highly political, it is not implausible that the authorities were aware of his political involvement. He reiterates that he was questioned about his activities and he was asked to stop them.