CAT/C/49/D/425/2010 area, but he did not do so. The State party therefore finds that the explanation as to why the complainant waited until March 2008 to seek protection and did not do so during one of his earlier trips outside Algeria, when he was allegedly tortured in 2005, is not credible. The State party therefore submits that the complainant has not been able to show that it is probable that he has been subjected to torture in the past, nor that he would suddenly have become of such interest to the authorities before leaving Algeria that he would run such risks at the time of his departure or on return. 4.8 The State party further notes that even if the complainant could be considered to have sent the alleged letters to the President and Minister of Defence, and despite international human rights reports attesting to imprisonment for up to six months for slander in 2008 and 2009, the complainant’s letters of 2005 have not led to any prosecution and it would therefore not be probable that his letter of 22 March 2008 would constitute a plausible ground for such a risk. The letter does not contain any acknowledgment of receipt and there has not been any information that it led to prosecution. 4.9 The State party acknowledges that it is a punishable offence to leave Algeria illegally using forged documents or to exit the country other than via official border stations. However, the facts indicate that the complainant has exited Algeria at an ordinary border station using a genuine passport; therefore, there is no reason to assume that he would be at risk of any punishment under this law. 4.10 According to information available at the time of submission, the rejection of a request for asylum is not per se supposed to have an impact on a return to Algeria. Although information in some reports suggests that there is a risk that individuals returning after having an asylum application rejected may be suspected by the Algerian authorities of having been involved in terrorist acts, it relates to persons who have been denied asylum on the grounds of national security.3 This is not relevant in the complainant’s case. There is no evidence to suggest that individuals who have been absent from Algeria for any period of time or who are returning after a application for asylum has been denied are at risk of torture. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the Algerian authorities would know that the complainant has applied and been denied asylum, and on previous re-entries from Europe and other countries the complainant has not encountered any problems, despite his claim to have signed a confession that he had belonged to an Islamist group. 4.11 Finally, the State party submits that the alleged torture took place more than five years ago, if at all; when the complainant left Algeria he had been able to live in Algeria for more than two years after he was allegedly tortured and had also been able to leave and return to Algeria without problems. It notes that there is little to suggest that the complainant would still be of interest to the authorities in Algeria. Therefore, the State party submits that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant do not show that the alleged risk of torture in his case fulfils the requirements that it is foreseeable, real and personal. It submits that the allegation of a violation of article 3 is manifestly illfounded. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 May 2011, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations, and notes that the State party has not addressed the issue of the letter by the First Secretary of the Swedish Embassy in Algiers, which should give him the right of reevaluation of his case in domestic courts, in particular as the principles of independence and 3 The Country of Return Information Project, “Country sheet: Algeria” (May 2009), pp. 12-13; see also Amnesty International, “United Kingdom: deportations to Algeria at all costs” (26 February 2007). 7