United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Sessional/Annual Report of Committee - 9.2 The State party recalls that the facts on which the author of the communication bases his claim are essentially: that, during a meeting in a Sudanese club in December 1991 in Beirut, the leader of a Sudanese militia threatened to kill him and warned him against ever returning to Sudan; that some days later his house was ransacked; that in November 1993, the author was informed that the new embassy of Sudan in Lebanon envisaged returning forcibly to Sudan opponents of the regime; and that in November 1993, the Hezbollah attempted to kidnap him. 9.3 The State party refers to its observations on the admissibility of the communication and reiterates that the author's account lacks credibility. It recalls that the author has presented two radically different versions of the dispute in the Sudanese club: before the cantonal authorities, he affirmed that the dispute was between representatives of the Sudanese Islamic Front and a group of students, in the course of which Nagdi would have told him that he intended to kidnap him in order to bring him back to Sudan. According to this version the ransacking of his apartment by the Hezbollah was a consequence of the threats made by Nagdi. 9.4 At the hearing before the federal authorities, the author stated that the dispute was between him and Nagdi and that the group of students was not involved. Nagdi did not threaten to kidnap him, but to kill him, and warned the author against returning to Sudan. When it was pointed out to the author at the hearing that this version differed from the version given at the first hearing, the author failed to explain the discrepancies, but declared that Nagdi had never said that he intended to kidnap him in order to bring him back to Sudan. He then explained that he supposed that the ransacking of his apartment was the work of the Hezbollah because they wanted to kidnap him. 9.5 The State party explains that in the light of these two versions, its authorities considered that the incident could not be seen as credibly established on which a determination of refugee status could be based. The State party recalls that Swiss legislation requires that an asylum seeker demonstrate that it is highly probable that he is subjected or rightfully fears being subjected to serious prejudices because of his race, religion, nationality, social affiliations or political opinions. Article 12(a)(3) of the Asylum Law states that declarations not sufficiently substantiated on essential points, contradictory, or not corresponding with reality are not to be considered as probable. Since the author's declaration contradicted itself with regard to the parties involved in the dispute, the nature of the threats made by Nagdi, and the purpose of the visit of the Hezbollah to his apartment, the authorities did not consider his account probable. 9.6 The State party notes that the author has tried to harmonize the contradictions in his account to the Committee, but argues that the two versions are irreconcilable. 9.7 The State party emphasizes that the author signed and confirmed the minutes of the hearing before the federal authorities, which were read back to him; according to the minutes, Nagdi never threatened to kidnap him. 9.8 The State party points to other contradictions in the author's story which are said to impair his credibility. The State party mentions the author's return to his apartment (several days, ten days, two or three days after the incident), the arrest and disappearance of his brother (November 1992, January http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/de75e94f920bd0a0802565a600537744?Opendocument (70 of 109)16/10/2006 9:54:12 AM