been identified by helicopter or in another way. 7.2 Furthermore, counsel claims that the petitioner stated that only his brother was active in the Kurdish political organization. When the petitioner in his submission to the Committee stated that his family had been politically active for many years, he meant that his family had been attributed a political role because of his and his brother's political activities. He also points out that the information received about his father's and brother's detention came from his mother, through a friend, since the petitioner has not been able to be in direct contact with his family. 7.3 Counsel claims that the State party does not apply the same criteria when considering an application for asylum as the Committee. He contends that the State party often disregards documents provided by the complainant, such as medical reports. With regard to the State party's allegation that the petitioner has not fulfilled his obligation to provide documented information, counsel states that the State party rarely give value to such evidence, and he finds it awkward that the State party in this particular case bases its rejection upon the lack of such evidence. Furthermore, it has been impossible to trace documentation concerning the petitioner's imprisonment in 1994 or that of his brother and father in February 1999. Counsel points out that the petitioner left Iran in a hurry and was therefore unable to collect any documents. 7.4 Counsel explains that the failure to mention the petitioner's mental health problems at an earlier stage is explainable by the fact that the petitioner did not know what information to provide. It is pointed out that the petitioner has only a basic education. 7.5 Regarding the State party's allegation that the petitioner stated that he was one of the organizers of the demonstrations in Sanandaj, counsel points out that once the petitioner realized that the State party had misunderstood the level of his participation at the demonstrations, he provided clarifications. 7.6 In general, counsel points out that misunderstandings often occur during interviews with asylum applicants, due to the fact that the applicants are exhausted from long journeys and traumatic experiences and are terrified by authorities. Further observations by the State party 8.1 The State party submitted further observations regarding the merits of the case on 2 October 2001. The State party objects to counsel's statement that it would be futile to submit documents to the Swedish authorities. It stresses that the Swedish migration authorities examine as thoroughly as possible every case put before them, including any piece of evidence submitted. 8.2 The State party notes that the petitioner has based his application on the alleged arrest of his father and brother, although he has not been able to contact either of them, nor procure documents with regard to them. The State party considers that the petitioner should at least be able to explain when he last heard from his family, what efforts he has made to contact them and why he has not succeeded. Furthermore, the State party refers to K.M. v. Switzerland, communication No. 109/1998, and contends that there is nothing to suggest that members of the petitioner's family have been