CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 interview, he had submitted that the officers had counted arrestees every 10 to 15 minutes, that they had kicked him three or four times and that his arrest had not exceeded 30 minutes. The complainant had replied to the questions regarding the length of his arrest without hesitation, without mentioning any potential emotional distress he would have experienced while signing the transcript of the first asylum interview. 4.8 Moreover, the asylum authorities found that the complainant’s allegations of the kicks inflicted by the officer on the arrestees in the van and his escape therefrom were superficial in the circumstances. Furthermore, it did not appear credible that the arrestees, including the complainant, had been released from handcuffs, as that could have increased their escape risk. In addition, at the first asylum interview, the complainant had not mentioned that his handcuffs had been removed. The complainant’s description of the escape from the van appeared incredible, particularly given the risk that he would have been running by fighting the officer in the van and his statement that the other arrestees had remained in the van after his and the other demonstrator’s escape. He had failed to explain how they could have passed through the officers who were patrolling outside the van. 4.9 The State party submits that the asylum authorities considered it incredible that the complainant’s brother’s banned material had been stored in their shared room, despite the alleged political activities of the complainant and his bad reputation with the Iranian authorities. It also found it implausible that his brother had not experienced problems with the authorities and that the complainant did not know where his brother had obtained the banned publications. Furthermore, the complainant has not provided any plausible explanation to the Committee as to why he had not made arrangements to destroy the banned material and to get hold of his travel documents before the officials searched his parents’ house. The conduct of the officials during the search appears unrealistic, especially their alleged threats against the complainant’s father, given the complainant’s failure to explain how they could have influenced the proceedings against him. Neither did the complainant provide a plausible explanation as to why all his documents had been kept in one single bag, except for his identity card which had allegedly been kept by his father. According to the asylum authorities, the complainant did not wish to show his identity documents to the asylum authorities, as the documents would indicate the actual date of his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran and his travel itinerary. 4.10 Furthermore, the asylum authorities considered that the complainant’s allegations were unsubstantiated. He had failed to explain the origin of his brother’s banned publications, and had not provided a detailed description of the demonstrator with whom he had escaped from the van, or of the officer who had administrated kicks to them in the van. Furthermore, he had not provided a sufficiently detailed description of the three visits by officials to his parents’ house, particularly of his parents’ behaviour during those visits. 4.11 The asylum authorities considered that the summons of the Revolutionary Tribunal had no evidentiary value, as such documents could be easily falsified in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainant had not provided other judicial documents, which could be more difficult to forge. The address indicated on the summons was different from the address he had indicated at the asylum interviews. The complainant had specified neither the contents of the summons nor when he had received it, nor when he had familiarized himself with its contents, although he had allegedly discussed those details in a telephone conversation with his father. Given that summons are generally issued in the middle of proceedings, the complainant had not explained what had happened to other procedural documents, which should have been issued at an earlier stage of the proceedings, such as a notification for questioning by the police, by an investigating magistrate or by the Ministry of the Interior. Yet, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, indictment by the Ministry of the Interior, as was alleged in the complainant’s case, is preceded by investigation. The State party submits that the conclusions of the asylum authorities cannot be overturned by the 7