had not yet entered the capital. In addition, even if the author's version was accepted 6 thus implying that his membership of the MPR was an established fact, which is far from being the case 6 that would in no way constitute a basis for fear of future persecution. It is difficult to see why the author would be tortured on his return if he was not mistreated during his supposed interrogation on 10 May 1997. In order to give sufficient substance to the risk of future persecution, the author should have provided other evidence relating to the period after his escape which would support the belief that the risk of torture was likely to materialize. 4.6 This communication differs from those cases in which the Committee considered that the return of the authors to Zaire would breach article 3 of the Convention. By contrast with the communications Mutambo v. Switzerlanda and Muzonozo Paku Kisoki v. Sweden,b the author of the present communication has been unable to demonstrate that he left his country because of persecution suffered in the past or that his political activities in host countries have given rise to a greater fear that he would be tortured if he were returned to his own country. Lastly, the author has not argued that his ethnic origins could expose him to the risk of torture. 4.7 Neither has it been shown that he was a member of the MPR. Notwithstanding his intention to submit his membership card, which supposedly remained at his home after his departure, it would seem that the author has made no move to recover it. Yet, according to information from the Swiss Embassy in Kinshasa, postal links with the Democratic Republic of the Congo are operating normally. Private companies such as DHL and EMS are well established in the capital and provide an effective postal service. Moreover, the author has in no way suggested that his family has been exposed to persecution by the authorities. It must thus be supposed that the author has been at liberty to contact his family with a view to recovering his MPR membership card. That said, even had the author been a member of the MPR, that would not constitute grounds for considering that the risk of torture had been sufficiently established. The former members of the MPR in the Democratic Republic of the Congo number hundreds of thousands, and the Government has taken no general measures of persecution against them. Moreover, the author has been unable to provide detailed information on the duties he performed for the MPR. In his communication, he has not even deemed fit to provide any information on the subject. 4.8 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the State party concludes that there is nothing to indicate the existence of serious grounds for fearing that the author would personally risk being exposed to torture upon returning to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The author's comments 5.1 By letter of 15 July 1999, the author informed the Committee that he was in custody pending his return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He reverts to the subject of the Swiss authorities' interpretation as to the origin of the threat to himself in his country. According to the CRA, he ought to have had no fear of persecution, since on 10 May 1997 Kabila's forces had not yet entered Kinshasa. In fact, by 10 May 1997 a number of infiltrators had already reached the capital, although officially the advance guard did not arrive until 17 May. It was soldiers of the AFDL who interrogated the author. There could be no question of his confusing them with soldiers belonging to the armed forces of President Mobutu, who held no fears for him as they knew him. 5.2 The author argues that it is now impossible for him to provide proof of his political activities. As to his MPR membership card, he points out that if communications between the Democratic Republic of the a CAT/C/12/D/13/1993. b CAT/C/16/D/41/1996. 123