CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 such confessions. However, the Committee reiterates that the occurrence of human rights violations in his/her country of origin is not sufficient, in itself, to permit to conclude that a complainant, personally, runs a risk of torture. 23 8.7 The Committee further notes that the State party’s competent authorities have drawn attention to false information, inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainants’ accounts and submissions, which cast doubts regarding their general credibility and the veracity of their claims. In particular, the first complainant has given false information in the 2004 asylum proceedings and in the period between 2006 and 2009 the complainants travelled legally to and from Belarus, were issued new passports and visas and waited over a year after their arrival in Sweden before applying for asylum. Furthermore, the accounts of their political activities between 1996 and 2009 remain vague and incoherent; their stories lack concrete details. 8.8 The Committee also takes note that the State party is not questioning the complainants’ submission that they were arrested by the Belarusian authorities during the demonstration in 2006 and subjected to abuse in connection to this. However, the complainants have stated that they participated in a number of demonstrations after 2006 (in the period from 2006 to 2009) without being arrested or otherwise harassed by the police. Therefore, the complainants have not alleged that they have been subsequently harassed or arrested by the Belarusian police in the recent past. Consequently, there are reasons to question the alleged interest by the Belarus authorities in the complainants and its continued harassment of them so many years later, given that the complainants have not participated in the demonstrations in December 2010, and are neither high-profile opposition figures, nor close supporters of such opponents of the regime. In addition, the complainants have not claimed to be members of any party. 8.9 Furthermore, the Committee also takes note of the State party’s submission that, during her Migration Board interview, the second complainant had the opportunity to give an account of all relevant facts and to read and verify the minutes, in the presence of a public counsel. In this regard, the Committee observes that the migration authorities have neither disregarded nor questioned that she was subjected to abuse in connection with the demonstration in 2006 and have made their assessments accordingly. 8.10 Furthermore, the Committee observes that no evidence had been brought forward to support the complainants’ allegation that their political activities in Belarus between 2006 and 2009 and in Sweden from 2009 onwards (e.g. submitting complaints to various authorities in Belarus and disseminating anti-regime propaganda on the Internet) have provoked the authorities’ interest in them and that they had been threatened by the Belarusian authorities directly or indirectly through phone calls from the police in Minsk to Sweden and through alleged inquiries about the complainants’ whereabouts and contact information made by the police while interrogating the first applicant’s mother and stepfather during their alleged arrest in December 2010. Moreover, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that neither the mother and stepfather nor the complainants themselves are on the list of persons that were arrested, suspected or accused of crimes in relation to the events on 19 December 2010.24 In this regard, as the Swedish migration authorities have noted during the domestic proceedings, the complainants are not members of any political party and have not shown that the Belarusian authorities have any interest in their alleged political activities. 23 24 See, inter alia, communication No. 519/2012, T.M. v. Republic of Korea, decision adopted on 21 November 2014, para. 9.7. According to information collected by the Viasna Human Rights Centre. 15