- 127 submission that he was required to report to the police and restricted in his travel was not plausible in the light of the evidence of the treatment of FIS members during the time in question. Furthermore, in the light of recent developments in Algeria, the State party submits that sympathy with the FIS is unlikely to draw the attention of the Algerian authorities. 4.5 With regard to the military recall of the petitioner, the State party points at the findings by RRT that there was no military recall until March 1995. Country information received by the State party indicates that there was an earlier recall of reservists in 1991, but no further recall until March 1995. The State party recalls further that there was no evidence that the petitioner was recalled at all, while independent evidence indicated that a notice would have been sent to the petitioner’s home. Even in the event that the petitioner had failed to respond to a recall of reservists, the alleged victim did not produce any specific information that he is likely to be subjected to torture. The State party points to UNHCR guidelines in respect of Algerian asylum-seekers and submits that the likelihood of arrest alone does not support allegations of the likelihood of torture. 4.6 The State party submits that the copy of the court verdict presented by the petitioner is unlikely to be genuine, given that the petitioner’s own account of when the order was issued is inconsistent with the date of the order and the sentence imposed is inconsistent with information received concerning penalties imposed on reservists for the failure to respond to recall, i.e. arrest and imprisonment for a period of between 3 months and up to 10 years, depending on the circumstances. The State party further recalls Amnesty International’s reports that Algeria has had a moratorium on carrying out death sentences since December 1994 and that none has been carried out since that time. 4.7 Insofar as the petitioner claims that he is at risk of being subjected to torture because of a suspicion that he has applied for refugee status or sought asylum, it is submitted that the alleged victim did not provide any evidence to support the observation that Algerian authorities have been made aware of his applications in Australia or South Africa. Country information received by the State party indicates that, even if the Algerian authorities were aware of the petitioner’s applications, there is no substantial reason for believing that he would be subjected to torture. Comments by the petitioner 5.1 The petitioner submits that the human rights situation in Algeria remains critical. He argues that Algeria continues to ignore or is unable to respond to allegations of torture and ill-treatment of those people arrested on suspicion of having links with armed groups. The petitioner recalls the note in the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee in 1998 that there were numerous sources of information that torture, disappearances and summary executions occurred in Algeria. In addition, the petitioner notes Amnesty International’s continuing concern regarding torture of those, who have been interrogated about possible contacts with members of armed groups. 5.2 The petitioner submits that the distinction made between his involvement with FIS and active membership in the organization is artificial. In addition, no evidentiary basis is presented for the conclusion that social assistance activities, which have obvious political significance, are not regarded as political by the Algerian authorities.