CAT/C/37/D/286/2006 Page 7 4.17 In addition, the State party submits that there are serious doubts about the complainant’s general veracity. His account of the events contains a number of inconsistencies and shortcomings. Although the State party is aware of the Committee’s view that complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of alleged torture, it considers that the inconsistencies must be held against him in an assessment of his credibility. The State party refers to the complainant’s contradictory or false information concerning his travel route to Sweden, and to his absconding from, and omission to inform the Swedish authorities of, the asylum proceedings in the Netherlands. When he was confronted with this information, he admitted that he had applied for asylum there, but opposed being expelled to that country. The complainant also submitted contradictory information concerning his wife and divorce. 4.18 The State party submits that the complainant has not provided any substantial evidence as to the events in 1997, or of his claim that he is widely known to the Iraqi people or the religious communions in Iraq. He has not presented any tangible evidence that a fatwa has been issued against him. The lack of evidence should be noted in view of the fact that during the asylum proceedings the complainant provided clearly conflicting information on essential aspects. In addition, it refers to counsel’s submission and Professor H.’s statement that the fatwa is not specifically issued against the complainant. 4.19 The State party argues that the complainant has a weak link to the Swedish society and that he stayed in Sweden as an asylum seeker for a period of only nine months before being arrested and convicted for smuggling of heroine and aggravated drug crimes to eight years imprisonment. According to a taped telephone conversation between the author and his mother invoked by the prosecutor as evidence in Göta Court of Appeal, the main purpose of his stay in Sweden was “business”. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 28 July 2006, counsel commented on the State party’s observations. On the admissibility, counsel refutes the State party’s claim that the communication fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. She refers to UNHCR´s earlier refugee statement and the letters from Professor H. and the President of the Swedish Muslim Association. She maintains that there is a great risk that the complainant will be tortured or even killed if forcibly returned to Iraq and claims that the communication is admissible. 5.2 On the merits, counsel refutes the State party’s argument that an incident which took place ten years ago would not be of interest of the people in general or from religious communions in Iraq. She refers to Professor H.’s and the President of the Swedish Muslim Association’s conclusions. 5.3 On the complainant’s credibility, counsel submits that many asylum seekers fail to disclose their travel route, for various reasons. She submits that this does not however mean that the asylum seeker is untrustworthy. She invokes the principle on the benefit of the doubt and refers to UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (paras. 203 to 205)8. She adds that the complainant’s statement is coherent and plausible and 8 (2) Benefit of the doubt 203. After the applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate his story there may still be a