CAT/C/46/D/310/2007 accordance with the judgment of the Supreme State Security Court, and that he has not claimed to have been involved in any political or other activities after 2003 that might be considered hostile to the Syrian regime. His claim that restrictions were imposed on him had been refuted by the Embassy report dated 7 August 2007, which states that even if he had left Syria illegally, he would probably only be sentenced to a fine. The Embassy report had been prepared “by a local lawyer with great knowledge of the Syrian system who carries out investigations on behalf of several European Embassies and United Nations bodies in Syria.” The complainant had failed to present any counter-evidence to refute the report or even to explain why he considers the information contained therein to be incorrect. 6.4 The State party recalls that according to the medical certificate dated 6 September 1991, the complainant had been in hospital twice during the Lebanese civil war after suffering splinter injuries to his legs. His latest submission to the Committee that he had only once been wounded by a bullet causing him a minor flesh wound was also inconsistent with his application in 1993 for revocation of the expulsion order, where he stated that he had been wounded by shell splinters and gunfire on several occasions. Moreover, during the domestic proceedings, the complainant also claimed that he had been tortured in Lebanon in 1989. The forensic medical report submitted by him only concludes that the scar formations on his body could have been caused between 1997 and 2000. For the State party, this does not permit any positive conclusions as to when and where the torture of the complainant took place. 6.5 The State party also challenges the complainant’s claim that the Syrian authorities forced him to disclose his prison term in Sweden on arrival at Damascus airport, recalling that according to the protocol of the Norrköping police, he had told the Syrian escort about his prison sentence during the flight to Damascus. 6.6 The State party dismisses as lodged out of time the information submitted by the complainant concerning the interrogation of his sister, niece, nephew and uncle by the Syrian security service during their visits to Syria. This information was not supported by any evidence and would have been available already at the time of the initial submission of the communication to the Committee. 6.7 Lastly, the State party informs that its decisions rejecting applications for revocation of expulsion orders are generally not motivated. Further comments by the complainant 7.1 On 21 April 2008, the complainant sent further comments. In particular, he reiterates that there were sufficiently strong indications prior to his deportation in 1997 that he could be arrested and subjected to torture in Syria, even if those indications were not as strong as in the Agiza case. 7.2 The complainant argues that although he cannot prove that restrictions were imposed on him, this was highly probable given that he was a former convict. The State party had failed to show how its lawyer had obtained information to the contrary. In any event, he should be given the benefit of the doubt, in accordance with internationally recognized principles. 7.3 The complainant justifies the contradictions in his statements before the Swedish authorities with his mental condition. The psychiatrist at the Centre for Treatment of Crisis and Trauma Victims had confirmed that he could suffer from a personality disorder and that he was most likely suffering from a post-traumatic stress syndrome. Such contradictions could not change the fact that he was tortured in 1997 in Syria and that he would face a grave risk of being tortured if returned to that country again. 12