CAT/C/24/D/116/1998 page 5 bed hidden under a sheet. There are also serious doubts about his escape from the country, since he came to Europe by plane, the most tightly controlled means of transport, although he claims that he was wanted on serious charges. 4.6 The State party considers it surprising that the author produced no medical certificate, even though he claimed to be suffering from the after-effects of the acts of torture to which he had been subjected and that these acts were recent enough for a doctor to determine that they had taken place. No documentary evidence was produced to explain these contradictions in the author’s account and hence he cannot use the argument put forward in previous cases before the Committee, whereby “the effects of a post-traumatic stress disorder, as in the case of many torture victims” may account for “the inconsistencies that appear in some statements”.2 4.7 While acknowledging that a person does not have to have been tortured in the past to have a justifiable fear of being tortured in the future, the State party points out that there is no further evidence in the author’s case to prove this risk exists. Referring to the Committee’s decision in the case of Seid Mortesa Aemei v. Switzerland,3 it thus notes that, even if the author’s position in Hyochade really did involve being a member of the MPR, his political activities were not important enough to warrant his persecution by the current Government. 4.8 The State party expresses serious doubts about the author’s professional activities and about the very existence of the Hyochade company, since the author has never been able to produce any documents relating to his work for that company, even though he was able to obtain a number of other documents and his family on the spot could have helped him find the papers he wanted. In addition, the State party believes that for the author to be effective as an informant, he would have needed the help of other informants. Yet the author has always maintained that he had been working alone, which appears inconsistent to the State party. 4.9 Regarding the lack of evidence, the State party’s comments in the previous paragraph also apply to the author’s escape from hospital, insofar as his sister or the person who helped him could have provided a statement. 4.10 Lastly, as far as the general situation in the DRC is concerned, the State party accepts the Committee’s observations in the case of X, Y and Z v. Sweden4 and recalls that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has not as yet made any recommendations to the effect that asylum-seekers whose applications are unsuccessful should not be sent back to that country. Additional observations by the author 5.1 In a letter dated 28 April 1999, the author comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication. 5.2 With regard to the contradictions found by the State party in the author’s accounts, the author refers to the appeal submitted to the Swiss Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters on 30 April 1998, in which all the necessary explanations are given. It is made clear there that, while it had not indeed been recorded during the first hearing that he had had problems with the authorities on 18 June 1997, the author had in fact meant to say that he had not been physically