Syria and the arrests to which they are subject,j Amnesty International acknowledges that people have been arrested not because of their Kurdish origin, but because of their political activities. Thus, according to the State party, the complainants’ assertion that they risked, in the event of return to Syria, being ill-treated or tortured because of their Kurdish origin is baseless. Furthermore, the State party maintains that information in possession of the Swiss Government indicates that a lengthy stay abroad in connection with an asylum application does not, in and of itself, lead to prosecution on political grounds or to particular problems on returning to Syria. Thus, referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence,k the State party concludes that the condition sine qua non of a “personal” risk of being subjected to ill-treatment is not present in this case. 4.12Regarding the particular situation of Mrs. T., the State party observes that throughout the proceedings only Mr. H. adduced reasons which could substantiate - were they well founded - the view that it would be unacceptable for him to return to Syria. In contrast, there is no claim that Mrs. T. was politically active in Syria or elsewhere or that she was arrested or ill-treated. In this connection the State party recalls that article 3 of the Convention does not guarantee, in the Committee’s practice, family reunion if only one of its members can demonstrate genuine and serious risk of being subjected to ill-treatment. Accordingly, the State party concludes that the return of Mrs. T. would in no way violate the Convention. 4.13Regarding the credibility of the information provided by the complainants, the State party considers that the many contradictions identified in the complainant’s statements (in particular regarding his so-called political activities) make them incredible. The State party particularly wishes to point out that throughout the domestic proceedings the complainants have produced a number of documents, not of their own accord at the beginning of the proceedings, but only as a result of negative decisions taken by the Swiss authorities against them. Thus, the complainants produced the photograph showing them in Geneva in the spring of 2000 only after having received the CRA decision of 12 April 2001. The same is true of the Syrian security forces document of 21 August 1998 and the Syrian criminal judgement of 20 May 1999. The State party maintains that this behaviour suggests that the complainants “produced” certain evidence only once they had realized that their allegations were not achieving the desired effect on the competent national authorities. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1In a letter dated 23 October 2002 the complainants stated that they have no comments in addition to those made in their original complaint. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1Before considering any of the allegations in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. It has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It also notes that the State party has not contested admissibility. It therefore considers that the complaint is admissible. As both the State party and the complainants have provided observations on the merits of the complaint, the Committee proceeds with the consideration of those merits. 6.2The issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainants to the Syrian Arab Republic would violate the obligation of the State party under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 6.3The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture if they were returned to Syria. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of the determination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to the country. There must be other grounds indicating that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 6.4The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, paragraph 6 of which reads: “Bearing in mind that the State party and the Committee are obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable.” 6.5In this case the Committee notes that the State party draws attention to blatant inconsistencies and contradictions in the accounts and submissions by the complainants, casting doubt on the veracity of their allegations. It also takes note of the information supplied in this regard by the complainants. 6.6Regarding the allegations of ill-treatment and torture in Syria, the Committee notes that only Mr. H. states that he suffered such treatment while imprisoned in Tadmur prison between 1 November 1987 and 31 March 1988, and that he remained in the country undisturbed until his departure in 1998. 6.7Regarding the complainants’ political activities, the Committee notes, firstly, that only Mr. H. reports such an involvement in Syria. Secondly, in view of the complainants’ contradictions and inconsistencies and the serious doubts as to the authenticity of the internal memorandum from the Syrian security service of 21 August 1998 and of the Al Hasakah court judgement of 20 May 1999, the Committee considers that the complainant has not established, either in his statements or by means of the documents produced, his