CAT/C/20/D/65/1997 page 7 in article 3 of the Convention. The State Party recalls that the mere possibility that a person will be subjected to ill-treatment in his or her country of origin does not suffice to prohibit his or her return as being incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. 5.7 In the instant case, the Immigration Board considered that the information submitted concerning the author's political position and the extent and nature of his alleged activity did not support the finding that he had cause for a well-founded fear of persecution. In its rejection of the author's appeal, the Aliens Appeals Board found that the information submitted by the author lacked credibility and moreover, that, even if the information was accepted as truthful, it did not show that he would risk being subjected to persecution or that he would be entitled to asylum. The author's new application was rejected by the Aliens Appeals Board on 10 December 1996. It found unsubstantiated the author's claims that he had not been able to understand the interpreters used at the hearings and that his counsel had not devoted enough time to the case. It further noted that the author has submitted contradictory information about the times he had spent in detention and about the cause of the marks on his body. 5.8 The State Party emphasizes that the Aliens Appeals Board had the benefit of an oral hearing and that it based its opinion also on its first hand impression of the author. According to the State Party, this gives the Board such an advantage that the Committee should allow the Board a certain margin of appreciation when it subsequently evaluates the Board's decision. 5.9 The State Party bases itself on the findings of the Immigration Board and Aliens Appeals Board and points out inconsistencies in the author's story in relation to the periods of detention and argues that it is unlikely that the author was offered a high diplomatic post if he was perceived as a threat to the Government. According to the State Party, the inconsistencies and peculiarities of the author's story impact significantly on its veracity and on the credibility of his claims, including the claim that he has been tortured. On the basis of the above, the State Party contends that the evidence presented by the author is insufficient to demonstrate that the risk of being tortured is a foreseeable and necessary consequence of his return to Djibouti. According to the State Party, there is no evidence that the author's alleged political activities render him a target of persecution by the Djibouti authorities. 5.10 By way of conclusion, the State Party notes that the Committee has found violations of article 3 in all the cases against Sweden which it so far examined on the merits. In this context, the State Party points out that its immigration authorities have a considerable experience with the examination and determination of cases of this nature, involving difficult assessments as regards the credibility of the information submitted. Moreover, they have a considerable knowledge about the human rights situations in different countries. The State Party also recalls that the test applied by the European Commission of Human Rights under article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, is in principle the same