CAT/C/20/D/65/1997 page 8 as the one applied by the Committee under article 3 of the Convention against Torture. However, the European Commission has declared inadmissible most complaints against Sweden as manifestly ill-founded. 5.11 The State Party expresses its concern about a possible development of different standards under the two human rights instruments of essentially the same right. The State Party argues that diverging standards in this respect would create serious problems for States which have declared themselves bound by both instruments. Problems would arise when States attempt to adapt themselves to international case-law, if this case-law is inconsistent. According to the State Party, inconsistent case-law may also have serious detrimental effects on the overall credibility of the human rights protection system at international level. Counsel's comments 6.1 In his comments on the State Party's submission, counsel points out that Djibouti is not a party to the Convention against Torture and that consequently its Government is not even willing to give an image of respecting human rights. According to counsel, this is an additional reason for believing that the author will be tortured upon his return. 6.2 Counsel explains that there is no possibility of a further new application to the Aliens Appeals Board, because no factual new circumstances exist in the author's case. He maintains that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. 6.3 As to the merits, counsel contends that the human rights situation in Djibouti raises serious concerns. He explains that the political situation is characterized by the tension between the two main ethnic groups, the Issas and the Afars. After many years of struggle, a peace treaty between FRUD and the Government was signed in December 1994, but according to counsel, a large majority of FRUD continued its political resistance. Counsel submits that the Government discriminates against the Afar population in general and oppresses politically active opponents in particular. According to counsel, the situation in Djibouti amounts to a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights. 6.4 Counsel acknowledges that a serious human rights situation as such does not constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a person will be at risk of being tortured if returned. According to counsel however, in Djibouti prerequisite political and social conditions exist that make it indeed likely that torture would occur. 6.5 Counsel acknowledges that the Swedish legislation reflects essentially the same test as article 3 of the Convention, but argues that there is no indication that this test was indeed applied in the author's case. 6.6 Counsel explains that the author has been confusing what happened at which hearings, and that this explains the inconsistencies of his claims concerning the interpretation. Counsel states that the author suffers psychological trauma and that his confusion is understandable and cannot be considered as affecting his credibility. Counsel maintains that the time