4.10The State party’s latest country report of March 2001 notes that the human rights situation had improved slightly but remained a cause of concern, especially in conflict areas. President al-Bashir replaced the Tawali Act of January 1999 by a new Act on Political Parties, permitting political parties of 100 members or more to conduct political activities. The report states that political parties can carry out political activities without adverse consequences to a reasonable extent. There is no complete freedom, however. Political leaders, for instance, have on several occasions been summoned for questioning by security services and one arrest has been reported. There were, however, no cases of detention lasting longer than a day or of serious abuse, as there were before. Parties such as the Umma Party and DUP enjoyed more freedom than before. Members of the northern opposition returned to the Sudan in response to the “Motherland Call” and an amnesty for political refugees living in exile, announced by President al-Bashir on several occasions, was put in writing on 3 June 2000. Accordingly, the State party’s policy in relation to residence requests from Sudanese asylum-seekers remained intact. 4.11In relation to the complainant’s personal situation, the State party recalls that he claims to have begun work as a lawyer in Khartoum in March 1992 and was a member of the trade union for Sudanese lawyers (“the lawyers’ union”). In 1993, he became a member of DUP. The lawyers’ union had two factions: one supporting the regime in power and one supporting DUP. The complainant carried out activities for DUP within the lawyers’ union, mainly by coordinating and organizing meetings with the aim of overthrowing the regime. According to the complainant, his troubles started in July 1997, during the preparation for the November 1997 elections for the members of the board of the lawyers’ union. He states that the authorities had harboured ill-will towards him and his family even before then, because of the activities of his brother-in-law. 4.12The State party notes that the complainant was arrested four times. The first was in July 1997, during a meeting in the offices of the lawyers’ union in relation to the elections. In September 1997, when he wanted to attend a party meeting in Port Sudan and went to obtain a travel permit from the security services, he was informed that after his arrest in 1997 he was no longer allowed to travel. He departed nevertheless, but was arrested in Sawakin. After three days in detention, he was thrown into the ocean by members of the security services. He claims that this was done to scare him. He was picked up by a trawler, accused of arms trafficking and of leaving the Sudan illegally and turned over to the security services again. He was detained for seven days, after which he was released. The third arrest was in November 1997, when he was monitoring the lawyers’ union elections. The fourth arrest took place on 30 January 1998, during a demonstration. The complainant alleged that he was taken to a “ghost house”, where he was kept in a solitary cell measuring 0.5 by 3 metres and was interrogated twice, and subjected to psychological torture. On 20 March 1998, he was interrogated by a former classmate from secondary school. The former classmate decided to help the complainant and told him how to escape. On 25 March 1998, he left the Sudan by ship from Port Sudan. 4.13The State party recalls that the complainant applied for asylum and for a residence permit on 15 April 1998. On 12 May 1998, he was interviewed by an IND official, with the help of an Arabic interpreter, regarding the reasons for seeking asylum. By a decision of 23 May 1999, his application was rejected as manifestly ill-founded; his application for a residence permit was also rejected. On 17 June he lodged an objection against the decision of 23 May 1999, and on 10 February 2000 he was interviewed by a committee regarding his objection. The objection was declared unfounded on 14 April 2000. The complainant lodged an appeal against that decision on 9 May 2000. By judgement of 29 March 2001, the District Court of The Hague declared the appeal unfounded. 4.14The State party considers that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; specific grounds must exist to the effect that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.e The State party recalls that “substantial grounds” require more than a mere possibility of torture but need not be highly likely in order to satisfy that provision’s conditions.f 4.15The State party invokes the Committee’s general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, in particular paragraphs 6 and 7,g and the Committee’s Views in communication No. 142/1999, S.S. and S.A. v. the Netherlands.h 4.16The State party, in relation to the complainant’s personal risk in the event of his return to the Sudan, notes that the current human rights situation in the 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 country reports of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and to the Committee’s jurisprudence. 4.17For the State party, the fact that the complainant was a lawyer and a member of DUP does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for assuming that if he were returned to the 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 for 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 the Sudan. 4.18In the State party’s opinion, it cannot be concluded that the complainant 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 complainant’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 the Sudan. The State party argues that the complainant 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. 4.19The State party dismisses as implausible the complainant’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.