CAT/C/46/D/350/2008 veracity of the alleged facts, and consequently do not constitute grounds to conclude that the complainant would actually face a risk of torture if returned to his country of origin. The State party adds that the asylum application submitted by the complainant’s wife to the Swiss Ambassador to Zimbabwe on 17 April 2008 made no mention, or at least no explicit mention, of torture or violence suffered in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The State party therefore concludes that none of the evidence in the case file substantiates the claim that the complainant has been subjected to torture in the past. 4.5 With regard to the question of whether or not the complainant engaged in political activities within or outside his country of origin, the State party notes that he claims to have been an events organizer for GJCC in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, the GJCC documents (specifically the complainant’s membership card) and the statements from GJCC parish leaders who confirmed that in 2004 the complainant had given talks on the subject of “the elections and nationality” do not constitute evidence of a present and real risk of torture. The State party also makes reference to a document issued by the Swiss Refugee Council (OSAR) on 24 March 2005 which was submitted during the proceedings by the complainant. The complainant had contacted OSAR to request various items of information and seek its advice on his case. In its reply, OSAR had confirmed that members of religious groups such as GJCC were not subject to persecution and had raised certain doubts as to the veracity of the complainant’s claims. The State party adds that Joseph Kabila’s origin has been a subject of contention for years, both before and during the presidential election campaign. His victory on 29 October 2006 not only confirmed Joseph Kabila as the country’s President, but also gave him a legitimacy that he could not claim beforehand. The State party emphasizes that the complainant has been unable to explain why he should be wanted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for pre-electoral propaganda which was widely used at the time by opposition parties that are now represented in the Congolese parliament. 4.6 In Switzerland, the complainant recounted his story in a report on coercive measures broadcast on the Swiss television channel TSR on 17 September 2006, prior to the referendum on the asylum law. He did not claim to have criticized the Congolese Government in this broadcast, nor did he provide information about the circumstances behind his asylum application. The mere fact that the authorities of his country learned through this programme that he had applied for asylum in Switzerland was not grounds to conclude that he would actually face a risk of torture if returned to his country. The State party adds that the complainant has failed to provide evidence of the messages and telephone calls he supposedly received after the report was broadcast on TSR and TV5. The State party also concurs with the Federal Administrative Court’s observation (in its decision of 1 February 2008, observation 6.2) that the complainant’s appearance in this programme without his face obscured was inconsistent with the behaviour of a person who felt genuinely persecuted and threatened, and therefore detracts from his credibility. 4.7 The State party notes that other items of evidence, in addition to those set out above, indicate that the author’s allegations are not plausible. This evidence has been analysed by the Swiss authorities.2 Among this evidence, the State party cites the fact that upon his arrival in Switzerland the complainant attempted to mislead the authorities by presenting fake identity documents and a Red Cross identity card which had clearly been falsified. In addition, at the end of 2006, the complainant tried to gain entry to France using a residence permit (C permit) that was not his. These facts give grounds to doubt the complainant’s credibility. 2 6 Decisions of the Federal Office of Migration of 30 September 2004 and 12 July 2007; interlocutory decision of the investigating judge of the Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission of 5 October 2004; and Federal Administrative Court judgements of 1 February 2008 and 20 June 2008. GE.11-43878