CAT/C/53/D/520/2012 copies of those that have been submitted to competent domestic tribunals and that it was determined did not support a finding of risk in Ethiopia. It further submits that the analysis of the evidence and the conclusions drawn by both the RPD and the PRRA officer who assessed the risk to which she may be exposed if returned to Ethiopia were appropriate and well-founded. The State party relies on the findings by the RPD, which heard the complainant’s oral evidence and which questioned her about the inconsistencies in her story, to the effect that important aspects of her claim were not credible or plausible. The State party refers to the Committee’s views that it cannot review credibility findings “unless it is manifest that the evaluation was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice”. It notes that the complainant has made no such allegations and the material submitted does not support a conclusion that the RPD decision had such defects.13 4.14 Nevertheless, should the Committee feel inclined to reconsider the facts and credibility of the complainant’s claim, a focus on some of the more important issues clearly supports a finding that she has not substantiated her claim on even a prima facie basis. The State party submits that none of the main grounds on which the complainant bases the alleged risk of being tortured have been established to the requisite level of proof or support a finding that she would be personally at risk of torture if returned to Ethiopia. In particular, the State party submits that the story of the complainant’s arrest and detention in 2005 and in 2006 is not credible, as there were significant discrepancies between the story told in her written submission filed in support of her claim for refugee protection and her oral testimony before the RPD.14 The State party further notes that no objective evidence was provided to support any element of the alleged arrests. Despite asserting to the RPD during the hearing that her written submission was erroneous, the complainant repeated exactly the same story, acknowledged to be erroneous, in her subsequent PRRA application. 4.15 The State party submits that, even if the complainant is given the benefit of the doubt and it is accepted that she had previously been detained, that in no way supports a finding that she would be detained in the future and, in particular, does not support a finding that she would be tortured and killed if detained again. The State party further notes that, in both her PIF and in her PRRA application form, the complainant acknowledged that she had obtained an exit visa from the Ethiopian authorities in order to be allowed to leave Ethiopia to travel to Canada. She alleges that she had intended to return to Ethiopia until she learned from her brother that her husband had been questioned about her, that the Ethiopian authorities regretted having allowed her to travel abroad and that the authorities intended to arrest her when she returned. The State party submits that it is not plausible that the Ethiopian authorities would be more interested in the complainant now than when she was still living in Ethiopia. If the Ethiopian authorities were concerned about the complainant because of her imputed political opinion, they would not have released her after only a few days of detention, and would not have issued her with an exit permit to leave Ethiopia. Nor has the complainant alleged that she has taken part in any political activities while in Canada that might have come to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. 4.16 Furthermore, the State party notes the complainant’s allegation that, according to two letters she received from Ethiopia, her husband has been arrested again, and that he has been forcibly transferred to an unknown location. It notes that the arrest of her husband 13 14 8 See for example the decisions in Committee against Torture communications No. 148/1999, A.K. v. Australia (see footnote 12), para. 6.4; No. 135/1999, S.G. v. The Netherlands, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 6.6; Human Rights Committee communications No. 891/1999, Tamihere v. New Zealand, adopted on 18 April 2000, para. 4; No. 728/1996, Paul v. Guyana, Views adopted on 1 November 2001, para. 9.3. See para. 4.2 above.