CAT/C/56/D/545/2013 persecuted due to his political opinions, the Court noted that he did not allege that he belonged to a political party but merely claimed to have supported the Armenian National Assembly. The Court further noted that his alleged political activities (defending members of the opposition who had been arrested, participating in demonstrations and sharing political ideas with acquaintances) did not render him a serious danger to the Armenian authorities. Furthermore, the Court considered the complainant’s declarations concerning his activities as a lawyer for a member of the opposition to be unconvincing. The complainant made contradictory statements concerning the name of an opposition member whom he allegedly defended at a police station. That was all the more surprising given that, according to the Court, there was a confrontation with the police during which members of the opposition were arrested; lawyers subsequently took up their defence. If the complainant had worked as a rights defender, he would have been able to remember those events in detail, and would have been able to obtain evidence with the help of the other lawyers. Nothing in the complainant’s account indicates that he would be arrested or tortured on account of his political beliefs if he returned to Armenia. 6.6 The State party also considers that, according to the domestic authorities, the complainant’s statements featured a high number of factual inconsistencies. For example, the complainant claimed alternately that he was being persecuted due to his support for the opposition and that his persecution was a result of his employment with NSS. Also, if the Armenian authorities had an interest in persecuting the complainant, he would not have been able to leave and return to Armenia repeatedly without encountering problems. Similarly, if he had been threatened, his departure to Switzerland would not have been possible. Moreover, nothing suggests that the Armenian authorities are persecuting the complainant as a result of the alleged application he lodged before the European Court of Human Rights. Armenia has ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) and therefore implicitly accepts the Court’s competence to examine applications against it. Although the complainant disputes the decision of the Federal Administrative Court, he does not address the Court’s reasoning. Further, his reference to the removal of individuals to Sri Lanka is irrelevant, since he is not facing removal to Sri Lanka. 6.7 In addition, the State party considers as baseless the complainant’s claim that removal of his children to Armenia would constitute inhuman treatment. Given that his children are of a young age and are well integrated in Switzerland, a country whose languages they were unable to speak upon arrival, it is not believable that they would have serious problems integrating in their country of origin. The communication does not present any new facts or evidence that could justify reversal of the domestic decisions. Complainant’s further comments 7.1 In his submission dated 29 June 2015, the complainant asserts that, if his wife loses her job, their short-term L residence permit will be cancelled. That permit is renewable on a yearly basis with the sponsorship of his wife’s employer. The complainant claims that, although his wife does not face a “material” risk of losing her job, on account of the high demand for doctors in Switzerland, her continued employment is not guaranteed. The complainant states the following: I would accept the arguments and would agree to withdraw my petition provided [that the] Swiss authorities could guarantee that we will be able to stay in Switzerland with a certain residence permit in case my wife loses her job and the connected work residence permit. On the contrary, if such a guarantee is not feasible, I request to accept my petition for further consideration on the basis of the arguments I raised previously. 7