CAT/C/67/D/828/2017 in the conflict areas, predominantly in the east of the country, where various armed groups are active and the government armed forces conduct operations against opponents, the country is not at war, civil or otherwise, or plagued by generalized violence. It cannot therefore immediately be assumed – independently of the circumstances of the present case – that all complainants from this State face real danger. Moreover, the general human rights situation is not in itself sufficient to make the complainant’s return incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. The complainant has failed to make a convincing argument for the claims that he would face treatment prohibited under that article if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 4.11 With regard to claims of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and the existence of independent evidence to support those claims, the State party points out that States parties to the Convention have a duty to consider any such claims with a view to assessing the risk that the complainant concerned would be subjected to torture if he or she were to be sent back to his or her country of origin. The State party nonetheless recalls that the complainant has not actually claimed to have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment in his country of origin. 4.12 With regard to the complainant’s political activities in his country of origin, he claimed that he was a human rights defender in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and that he was sought by the current regime for demanding the return of General Munene in the context of the national dialogue and for speaking out in his defence during a conference in February 2017. The Swiss authorities have, however, found that his statements were not credible. In his complaint to the Committee, the complainant did not adduce evidence to challenge the findings of the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. 4.13 With regard to the complainant’s credibility and the consistency of the facts, the decisions of the national asylum authorities show that the complainant’s statements do not in any way indicate that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be exposed to torture if he were to be returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court considered that the complainant’s statements that he undertook a training course in the field of human rights provided by the International Centre for Training in Human Rights and Development in Kinshasa in 2015 were plausible. However, they noted that such training alone could not give rise to a risk to the complainant in the event of him being returned to the country. A total of 940 people reportedly attended such training courses in 2015 alone. 4.14 Equally, neither the State Secretariat for Migration nor the Federal Administrative Court challenged the complainant’s statements regarding his voluntary work visiting prisons and reporting on the detention conditions. They noted, however, that, without prejudging their credibility, the threats made against the complainant 8 during his prison visits were not of sufficient intensity to constitute serious harm, the complainant himself having recognized that the threats were acceptable and were not the reason for which he had fled the country. 4.15 The Swiss authorities, however, did not find credible the complainant’s claims that the immediate reason for him fleeing the country had been his participation in a conference denouncing human rights violations, during which he had spoken about General Munene’s situation. He had provided only inconsistent information about the conference and the surveillance to which he had reportedly been subjected, offering no more than general statements. He had given an impersonal and stereotypical description of the events, with no significant details that would indicate that he had actually lived through the experience. When he had been asked to name the people who had spoken at the conference, he had been able to give only the name of the coordinator of the International Centre for Training in Human Rights and Development. He was unable to recall either the name of the person representing the Ministry of Justice or that of the person working for an international nongovernmental organization, or even the name of the non-governmental organization. The asylum authorities rightly found that those statements called into question the credibility of 8 GE.19-14950 See the record of the hearing of 5 May 2017. 5