CAT/C/35/D/238/2003 Page 12 10.1 By letter of 5 November 2004, the complainant noted that the State party’s rejection of his claim that he would risk being tortured upon return to Ethiopia was based on its allegations of inconsistencies in his account. He referred to the Committee’s case law, according to which neither inconsistencies in an applicant’s story, provided they did not raise doubts about the general veracity of the claim,3 nor late submissions,4 automatically constituted obstacles to the protection guaranteed by article 3 of the Convention. He pointed out that the Committee has rejected similar arguments advanced by the State party in Tala v. Sweden,5 and that it found, for example in Mutombo v. Switzerland,6 that ���even if there are doubts about the facts adduced by the [complainant], [the Committee] must ensure that his security is not endangered.” He further submitted that the risk of torture invoking protection under article 3 must go beyond mere theory or suspicion, whereas the wording of article 3 does not demand a demonstration of a “high probability” that torture will occur. He also recalled that the reasons for the danger of being tortured should have been established before or after the flight of the involved person, or as a combination of both.7 10.2 The complainant argued that his identity as well as his involvement in politics and his imprisonment for his political activities, both under the former and under the present regime, had been established beyond reasonable doubt. The information provided by his mother confirmed that he disappeared about four years ago, which corresponded to the period of his last imprisonment and his political underground work. His political activities in Ethiopia and his persecution by the Ethiopian authorities were further confirmed by the support letters from the EPRP’s Norwegian section. The complainant also submitted a copy of an arrest warrant of 25 March 1994, when he worked for SEPDC, showing that he was wanted for interrogation. The complainant’s continued involvement in the EPRP’s Norwegian section wa also acknowledged in a support letter from that organisation. According to the complainant, his name appeared in the headlines of the Norwegian media several times in that context.8 All of these facts could not, in the complainant’s view, be overshadowed by the alleged inconsistencies in his case. 10.3 Regarding the allegations of inconsistencies and of the complainant intentionally presenting false information, the complainant recalls that he had initially given his account under adverse conditions. Having recently arrived in Norway and been kept in a security cell for some hours before his interrogation, and suffering from PTSD, his uncertainty and fear were worsened by the behaviour of the interrogation officer and the translator who allegedly ridiculed him. Moreover, the complainant communicated his surprise that the interrogation focused mainly on his family background and his departure from Ethiopia (11 pages of the protocol), rather than 3 Kisoki v Sweden Complaint No. 41/1996, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, Alan v Switzerland Complaint No. 21/1995, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, and I.A.O. v Sweden Complaint No. 65/1997, Views adopted on 6 May 1998. 4 Khan v Canada Complaint No. 15/1994, Views adopted on 15 November 1994, and Tala v Sweden Complaint No. 43/1996, Views adopted on 15 November 1996. 5 Ibid. 6 Case No 13/1993, Views adopted on 27 April 1994, at paragraph 9.2. 7 The complainant here refers to Aemei v Switzerland Complaint No. 34/1995, Views adopted on 9 May 1997. 8 The complainant supplies no further detail as to the sources or content of these media reports.