4.20The complainant was unable, according to the State party, to provide details about the prison in which he was held and, despite having been detained for over two months, could not describe his cell in any detail. The State party dismisses as implausible his statement that obstacles in the cell made it impossible for him to walk. It is unimaginable, in the State party’s opinion, that during a detention of almost two months, he would not have investigated his surroundings. He should have been able to describe his cell in more detail, at least because he alleges that food was thrown into his cell daily. 4.21The State party voices doubts about the ease with which the complainant claims to have been able to leave his prison. It contends that it stretches the imagination that major Sudanese opponents of the regime would be detained in a prison with unlocked doors. The State party also considers it curious that the complainant was able to leave undetected in a car that was waiting for him only 100 metres from the prison. Finally, the State party considers implausible the complainant’s account of his detention. 4.22The State party concludes that, in its opinion, the inconsistencies in the complainant’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 the 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 the 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. 4.23The State party contends that even if credence were given to the complainant’s statements regarding his problems in connection with his activities for DUP within the lawyers’ union, this does not justify the conclusion that he would be subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if he were now to return to the Sudan. The State party notes that it does not find it plausible that the Sudanese authorities were fully aware of the complainant’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 complainant’s own statements, he was never personally arrested or ill-treated (in his own home town, for instance) by the authorities. His arrests took place once in the context of an intervention by the police during a large-scale disruption of public order and once because he had violated a travel ban. 4.24The State party further concludes that given the general situation in the Sudan and the personal circumstances of the complainant, there is no reason to conclude that substantial grounds exist for believing that the complainant would run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to the Sudan. The complainant’s comments 5.1In his comments on the State party’s observations of 22 December 2002, the complainant 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 overall credibility of his statements. He challenges the State party’s doubts about the credibility of his statements relating 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 “ghost houses” is not readily available. He objects to the State party’s failure to 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. 5.2According to the complainant, the State party has not previously expressed explicit doubts about the credibility of his statements concerning his first, second and third arrests. The complainant views his statements as detailed, consistent and without contradictions. 5.3The complainant 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 that he was asked to stop them. 5.4The complainant further argues that the facts do not support the State party’s observation that he was not “singled out”. The first time he was arrested, questioned and tortured, he was one of the organizers of and speakers at the meeting in the lawyers’ union offices. The second time he was arrested, detained and tortured, and told to stop his political activities, after he violated a travel ban. The third time, he was among those who had detected an electoral fraud scheme. 5.5The complainant considers also that the State party should, but did not, take into consideration that every time he was detained, he was tortured. 5.6Finally, the complainant states that the State party should, but did not, take into account that lawyers in his position remain a group at risk in the Sudan.i Issues before the Committee 6.Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been or is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the State party has not raised any objections to the admissibility of the communication, and that it has requested the Committee to proceed to an examination of the merits. The Committee concludes that no obstacles to the admissibility of the complaint exist and proceeds with the consideration of its merits. 7.1The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 7.2The issue before the Committee is whether or not the forced return of the complainant to the Sudan would violate the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial