CAT/C/64/D/641/2014 substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 27 January 2016, the complainant provided his comments on the State party’s observations. He considers that the State party has failed to demonstrate that his complaint is manifestly unfounded. On the contrary, the facts on which the present complaint is based show that he is personally at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Côte d’Ivoire owing to his political activities in that country prior to his departure. The fact that the complainant was able to travel to different countries before he left Côte d’Ivoire for the last time does not exclude the risk that he is in danger of being tortured on return. 5.2 As to the State party’s assertion that he did not present until a later stage the account of attempted kidnappings and having been followed (see para. 4.8 above), the complainant submits that the initial interview at the Migration Agency lacked adequate translation and, therefore, the legal counsel representing him at that stage of the asylum proceedings had to correct the minutes of the interview afterwards. The complainant argues that at the Migration Court, he explicitly provided the details about those specific claims. He submits that, in his view, the decisions taken on his asylum application by the Migration Agency and the Migration Court were clearly arbitrary and denied him a fair and correct assessment. 5.3 With regard to the State party’s argument that evidence submitted by the complainant is of a very simple nature and, therefore, of low value (see para. 4.10 above), he states that he cannot submit any other material than what he has been able to receive from Côte d’Ivoire. The complainant adds that he cannot tamper with evidence to make it more “complicated” and thus satisfactory for the State party’s authorities. As to the fact that the summons was not submitted to the Migration Agency until a later stage, the complainant submits that, for a long time, none of his contacts in Côte d’Ivoire was willing to take the risk of getting the summons for him. 5.4 The complainant recalls that the State party questions his credibility, because he did not present all his reasons for seeking asylum early enough in the process before the Migration Agency (see para. 4.5 above). He argues in that regard that he presented all the information that he himself found relevant to his claim to be accepted as a refugee in Sweden. He never tried to hide any information from the Migration Agency. 5.5 Regarding the fact that he travelled to France and the Russian Federation and then returned to Côte d’Ivoire without being arrested (see paras. 4.9 and 4.11 above), the complainant submits that at that time, the current Ivorian authorities had established the Dialogue, Truth and Reconciliation Commission aimed at resolving problems in the country. He recalls that shortly after his return to Côte d’Ivoire, he began to be followed and avoided two kidnapping attempts. The complainant adds that many of his friends and colleagues were arrested and are still being held in indefinite detention.20 5.6 As to the fact that he managed to receive a national passport during the time he was allegedly in hiding (see para. 4.12 above), the complainant states that during the time of his hiding, which lasted several months, the current Ivorian authorities, who wanted the opposition to participate in the legislative elections, suspended the arrests of opposition activists for a short period of time. It was during that period that the complainant was able to apply for and collect his national passport. 5.7 With regard to the State party’s assertion that the complainant has not been politically engaged at any particularly high level (see para. 4.13 above), he argues that Ivorian prisons are full of political prisoners who have never been in high political positions. The complainant recalls in that context that neither the Migration Agency nor the Migration Court questioned the fact that he worked for Ms. Gbagbo. 5.8 As to the State party’s argument that there are discrepancies in his asylum account regarding who paid for his release (see para. 4.15 above), the complainant acknowledges that there could have been a misunderstanding regarding the circumstances and submits that 20 The complainant does not provide further details on the matter. 7