CAT/C/64/D/641/2014 probative value. For example, the summons does not indicate what act or crime the complainant is suspected of. The complainant has not explained why he did not submit the said summons until after the decision of expulsion was final, i.e. after the decision of the Migration Court of Appeal. The summons was dated 21 August 2012 and the complainant did not submit it to the Migration Agency until 21 October 2014. 4.11 The State party submits that, in the present context, it is also of relevance to the assessment of the complainant’s asylum account that he, despite those claims, was able to leave Côte d’Ivoire and travel to France 18 and the Russian Federation 19 and voluntarily returned to Côte d’Ivoire from France, without attracting the attention of the authorities. If, as the complainant suggests, the Ivorian authorities had an interest in him, which allegedly would involve a risk that he would be subjected to torture, it is questionable whether the authorities would have waited approximately four months to issue a summons for an interrogation, particularly as he was allegedly summoned as a suspect. In the light of that, the State party submits that the document claimed to be a summons cannot be accorded any evidentiary value in relation to the complainant’s claim that he risks being subjected to torture upon return to Côte d’Ivoire. Consequently, the State party is of the view that the complainant has not made his alleged need of protection probable by the submission of these documents. 4.12 The State party draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that the complainant’s national passport, submitted by him to the Swedish Migration Agency, was issued on 30 December 2011 by the Sous-direction de la police de l’air et des frontières (the air and border police authority) of Côte d’Ivoire. In that regard, the State party finds it remarkable that the complainant managed to successfully apply for and collect his national passport during the time he was allegedly in hiding between April and December 2011. Hence, it holds that this circumstance strongly speaks against the complainant’s alleged urgent threat from the Ivorian authorities. 4.13 As regards the complainant’s alleged political activities, the State party, like the Migration Court, notes that the complainant has not been politically engaged at any particularly high level. Nor has he had any particular standing within the Ivorian Popular Front that was previously in power in Côte d’Ivoire. In the State party’s view, such circumstances are also of relevance to the assessment of the potential risks facing the complainant upon return. 4.14 In addition, the State party notes that there are discrepancies in the complainant’s asylum account. In the interview before the Migration Agency on 4 May 2012, the complainant stated that his parents had paid for his release. However, during the asylum interview of 12 June 2012 and before the Committee, the complainant stated that he had been released after his wife had paid an amount of money to the militia that had arrested him. It is the State party’s view that the complainant’s information about who got him released must be considered an important part of his asylum account and not only a detail. Furthermore, the different accounts given by the complainant concerning who paid for his release were given only one month apart. The State party therefore submits that this discrepancy negatively affects the credibility of the complainant’s asylum account. 4.15 In the light of the foregoing, the State party finds that there are reasons to question the veracity of the complainant’s account of his alleged need for protection. In that regard, it notes in particular the complainant’s legal travel to France and the Russian Federation, where he chose not to apply for asylum, his ability to procure a national passport when he claims to have been in hiding and the discrepancy concerning who paid for his release. According to the State party, the documentary evidence and the circumstances invoked do not show that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Accordingly, under the present circumstances, enforcement of the expulsion order would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, since the State party finds that the complainant’s claim under article 3 fails to attain the basic level of 18 19 6 In January and February 2012. The date of entry into the Russian Federation was 17 April 2012.