CAT/C/65/D/841/2017 worked for the National Intelligence Agency from 2001 onward, without ever encountering any problems with the authorities. 4.7 Concerning the complainant’s political activity in his country of origin, the State party notes that, according to his statements, the complainant was never politically active in the Democratic Republic of the Congo nor did he engage in any anti-government activities. It should be noted that the complainant’s functions in the National Intelligence Agency were not of a sensitive nature. 4.8 As for the complainant’s political activity in Switzerland, the State party points out that, according to his statements, the Armée de résistance populaire that he joined at the end of 2015 has some 20 members in Switzerland who meet at a bar in Lausanne or at the home of the head of the Armée’s Switzerland chapter. The complainant has not demonstrated that the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are aware that he joined the Armée after leaving the country. Moreover, his political activity in Switzerland, which can only be described as marginal and with minimal exposure, does not indicate that he currently holds a decision-making position within the movement that is likely to be of concern to the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 4.9 Regarding the letter signed by Major General Munene, the complainant has stated that he took no steps to obtain it. He merely informed his counsel for the domestic proceedings, who is the Major General’s nephew and a member of the Armée in Switzerland, that he was in danger. The counsel reportedly replied that he would telephone the Major General to inform him. The Major General’s letter arrived at the counsel’s home, as indicated in the record of the hearing of 27 April 2017. As noted by the Federal Administrative Court, the letter and the circumstances of its drafting show that it was provided as an accommodation, at the request of the complainant’s counsel and for the sole purpose of the asylum proceedings in Switzerland and had, therefore, no evidentiary value. Moreover, the complainant did not demonstrate close ties with Major General Munene other than through his counsel, who is a relative of the Major General. Therefore, given the limited scope of the complainant’s political activity in Switzerland, there are no substantial grounds to believe that he is at risk of being subjected to torture if expelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 4.10 With regard to the complainant’s credibility and the consistency of the facts, the decisions of the national asylum authorities show that the complainant’s statements do not in any way indicate that there are substantial grounds to believe that he would be exposed to torture if expelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The complainant once again submitted to the Committee that he was a deserter from the National Intelligence Agency and, as such, would be considered a traitor. This argument does not call into question the decisions of the national authorities as the State Secretariat for Migration did not cast doubt on his history with the Agency. However, the national authorities found that the complainant’s statements did not indicate that he had been exposed, after leaving the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to any persecution that would have a bearing on the decision. The Federal Administrative Court agreed with the findings of the State Secretariat, ruling that the claims, all of a general nature, according to which deserters from the Agency were considered traitors and were liable to the death penalty if they returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, did not render it likely, in this case, that the complainant ran a tangible risk of persecution. Thus, the argument raised by the complainant regarding his history with the Agency does not call into question the decisions of the national authorities. 4.11 Concerning the authorities’ alleged visit to the complainant’s home following his departure from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it should be noted that the visit, inasmuch as it can be considered likely to have happened in the absence of any tangible evidence that it did, did not have any consequences. Furthermore, when he was asked multiple times at the hearing of 27 April 2017 to describe the consequences of his failure to respect his exit permit, the complainant did not spontaneously mention the visit of the authorities to his former home. He did not provide any convincing explanations for this omission. Caution should, therefore, be exercised with regard to the credibility of these statements. 6 GE.19-01119