CAT/C/71/D/807/2017 and evidence in a case. In particular, the Committee must assess the facts and evidence in a given case once it has been ascertained that the manner in which the evidence was evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 10 However, in the case under consideration, the evidence presented by the complainants does not show that the State party’s examination was marred by any such irregularities. This last finding applies in particular to the allegation that the Federal Administrative Court relied largely on two anonymous letters claiming that X has a sister living in Switzerland: the authors of these letters are known to the Swiss authorities, but, for obvious reasons, their identities have not been disclosed to the complainants; these letters prompted additional investigations by the Federal Administrative Court with a view to clarifying the facts; the complainants had access to the case file and were able to submit their comments to the Court; and, more importantly, the complainants’ asylum applications were rejected for reasons other than their identity. 4.10 In conclusion, according to the State party, there is nothing to indicate the existence of substantial grounds for fearing that the complainants would face a specific and personal risk of being tortured if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their allegations and the evidence provided do not warrant a finding that their return would expose them to a real, present and personal risk of torture. The State party therefore finds that the return of the complainants to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 31 August 2018, the complainants submitted comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 On the merits, the complainants submit that the State party attaches central importance to X’s second hearing and claims that her explanations contain few details and are illogical and even contradictory. They note that the second hearing lasted for an entire day and was conducted through a Persian-language interpreter. The Federal Office for Migration received the first anonymous letter accusing X11 and Y of using false identities in June 2013, which meant that X’s second hearing with the Federal Office, on 3 September 2013, took place in an atmosphere of distrust. Although X’s memory may at times have failed her, particularly when it came to the recollection of painful events, as is often the case for victims with posttraumatic stress disorder, she maintains that she tried to respond in good faith to the nearly 200 questions that the employee of the Federal Office for Migration put to her and that, if it had been necessary, she would have provided more detailed information. The complainants note that the employee had seemed to take little interest in X’s replies, apart from her replies to the last two questions, which concerned the anonymous letters. From this point, the employee suddenly seemed very interested, although very dissatisfied with X’s replies. 5.3 In addition, the second letter sent was an almost word-for-word reproduction of the first. Although the Federal Office for Migration claims that its decision was not based solely on these letters but on the basis of the evidence as a whole, the complainants note that the arrival of these letters nevertheless represented a turning point in the proceedings. 5.4 Moreover, throughout the process, the complainants made repeated attempts to cooperate. On several occasions, X asked who had sent the letters so that she could better respond to them. She offered to undergo a DNA test to help to establish her identity and to prove that she was not related to the person alleged to be her sister, who had refused to take such a test. X nevertheless insisted and tried to convince this person to take the test by contacting her directly. The Swiss authorities’ finding that the complainants’ allegations were not credible and their refusal to grant them asylum were based on a biased examination of her case. 5.5 With regard to the plausibility of their account, the complainants state that there is a coherent explanation for all the possible contradictions and inaccuracies identified by the authorities. As is often the case with victims of post-traumatic stress disorder, X noted that 10 11 6 J.A.M.O. et al. v. Canada (CAT/C/40/D/293/2006), para. 10.5; and Ktiti v. Morocco (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010), para. 8.7. X is alleged to be Ghazal Tarik. GE.21-12363