sentencing in 1976, served the time until his escape nine years later in three different prisons. Counsel maintains that no other inconsistencies relating to the author's account of torture, sentencing, imprisonment and escape from prison are of substantial value, and should be seen in the light of the considerable time which has elapsed since the events took place. 10.5 Counsel further states that the protection provided for in article 3 of the Convention does not only apply to the risk of being subjected to torture by the Vietnamese State authorities, but also if the authorities are not able to provide the individual with necessary protection against criminal actions in Viet Nam. Counsel refers in this context to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. 10.6 Finally, counsel refers to the State party's supplementary observations of 5 October 1999, stating that the information provided by the Vietnamese authorities as to the author's criminal record is incorrect and maintaining that the author was sentenced by a court in Nha Trang in 1976 to 12 years' imprisonment. The case of Mr. H.N. 11.1 Counsel submits that the inconsistencies referred to by the State party with regard to the information provided by the author are not of substantial character but are merely a matter of semantics. The inconsistencies can be explained simply, by the fact that different interpreters were used during the different interviews or that the author's statements may have been written down differently on different occasions. As an example, counsel notes the State party's argument that the author's petition to the Government in January 1998, in which he stated that he was discovered when planning his escape from Viet Nam and was thereafter apprehended and tortured, diminishes the credibility of the author. In this respect, counsel submits that this statement in no way contradicts the author's claim that he was of interest to the authorities for having escaped mine clearance duty or for having been active in the resistence, or for a combination of the two. 11.2 With reference to the author's activities in the resistance, counsel disputes that individuals from different human rights organisations and from UNHCR referred to by the State party would necessarily have any knowledge about the activities of a small anti-Communist resistance group operative in Nha Trang 14 years ago. 11.3 Counsel disputes the indication by the State party that the author's account of his escape and the shootings in connection with it has been "escalating". Counsel argues that rather it is the questioning during the various interviews which escalated and recalls that during the initial police interview, in 1991, the author was not asked in detail about his escape. Counsel further disputes the State party's assertion that there is no indication that an arrest warrant for the author has been issued, and reminds the Committee of the initial refusal by the Vietnamese authorities to accept the repatriation of the authors because they had committed crimes in Viet Nam prior to their escape. 11.4 Counsel submits that it would not be possible for the author to submit any evidence other than a medical certificate to support his claim, given the circumstances of his escape. Counsel argues that it would not seem appropriate for the author to contact the Vietnamese authorities requesting documentary evidence and that the police, for obvious reasons, does not supply written evidence that torture has occurred. 11.5 Finally, counsel refers to the State party's supplementary observations of 5 October 1999, in which it is stated that the author has no criminal record in Viet Nam, submitting that this is in accordance with the author's statements that he has not been sentenced by a Vietnamese court for any crime. 144