CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014 A and that he must have “managed his situation” with them. Eventually, the author asserted that A may have had problems with the Bangladeshi police but he never thought to ask him about that. In the Division’s view, it was illogical for the author not to inquire whether his colleague still in Bangladesh was being targeted by police. Moreover, the inconsistencies in the author’s testimony and the absence of any trustworthy evidence demonstrating that the police were pursuing either the author or A, who together authored and published an article on police corruption, further supported the finding that the author’s allegations of being targeted by police were simply not credible. The State party considers that A’s letter (dated 5 March 2014 and submitted to the Committee) must be treated with the same level of careful scrutiny. It strains credulity that members of the Bangladeshi police would not have visited A as they had the author, or would have waited for the author to leave Bangladesh before doing so. The State party submits that it is even more difficult to believe that the author is only now being made aware of threats made against his colleague and co-author in relation to the same newspaper article. 4.5 The State party observes that the Refugee Protection Division reached the same conclusion with respect to the author’s allegation of being persecuted by local members of the Awami League Government and associated thugs, again because of important omissions and inconsistencies in his oral testimony or between this testimony and his Personal Information Form. In the Division’s view, three elements were particularly revealing. First, the author testified orally concerning an incident in February 2013 when Awami League members and thugs descended on the home of his relatives, looking for him; however, this incident does not appear in his Personal Information Form, which the author had declared to be complete, true, exact and up-to-date as of the day of the hearing. When asked about this discrepancy during the hearing, the author responded that it was an omission or mistake on his part. However, the Division rejected this explanation, deeming that it could reasonably expect the author to recall the February 2013 incident in documents he filed on 26 June 2013 in support of his application or, at least, to recall the incident before declaring his Personal Information Form complete, true, exact and up-to-date as of the day of the hearing. Moreover, the Division determined that the author’s credibility was further adversely affected when he again adjusted his testimony at the hearing to say that there had been two “home visits” by Awami League members and thugs in February 2013, one at the residence he shared with his wife and children (where they apparently continue to reside) and one at his relatives’ home. Second, the Division identified mistakes in the dates and number of threatening telephone calls the author claims to have received. In the view of the Division, an experienced senior crime reporter such as the author could reasonably be expected to be adept at recalling the dates and chronology of events. Even without focusing on the precise dates of events, the Division questioned the credibility of a journalist of 14 years’ experience who could not recall if the threat from Awami League thugs occurred on the same day as his complaint to the police or the day prior. Moreover, despite the author’s suggestion by way of explanation that there had been “a printing error”, the Division viewed it as highly unlikely that two separate newspapers could print the same error, especially given the level of detail in the reporting articles. Third, in the light of the overall lack of credibility of the author’s allegations, coupled with important inconsistencies between the author’s Personal Information Form, his testimony and the supporting material he submitted, the Division determined that many of these exhibits, including a letter from the Crime Reporters Association of Bangladesh, were self-serving and had no probative value in corroborating the author’s allegations that he was targeted by local Awami League members and thugs. Concerning the author’s application for leave for judicial review, the Federal Court’s stated test for granting leave is that an applicant must show that there is a “fairly arguable case” or “a serious question to be determined”. 4.6 Second, the State party considers that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded because the author has not met his evidentiary burden of 8