Switzerland,c it thus notes that, even if the author's position in Hyochade really did involve being a member of the MPR, his political activities were not important enough to warrant his persecution by the current Government. 4.8 The State party expresses serious doubts about the author's professional activities and about the very existence of the Hyochade company, since the author has never been able to produce any documents relating to his work for that company, even though he was able to obtain a number of other documents and his family on the spot could have helped him find the papers he wanted. In addition, the State party believes that for the author to be effective as an informant, he would have needed the help of other informants. Yet the author has always maintained that he had been working alone, which appears inconsistent to the State party. 4.9 Regarding the lack of evidence, the State party's comments in the previous paragraph also apply to the author's escape from hospital, insofar as his sister or the person who helped him could have provided a statement. 4.10 Lastly, as far as the general situation in the DRC is concerned, the State party accepts the Committee's observations in the case of X, Y and Z v. Swedend and recalls that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has not as yet made any recommendations to the effect that asylumseekers whose applications are unsuccessful should not be sent back to that country. Additional observations by the author 5.1 In a letter dated 28 April 1999, the author comments on the State party's observations on the merits of the communication. 5.2 With regard to the contradictions found by the State party in the author's accounts, the author refers to the appeal submitted to the Swiss Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters on 30 April 1998, in which all the necessary explanations are given. It is made clear there that, while it had not indeed been recorded during the first hearing that he had had problems with the authorities on 18 June 1997, the author had in fact meant to say that he had not been physically ill-treated by the authorities prior to 6 October 1997. On the same point, the author draws attention to the fact that the problems encountered on 18 June 1997 emerge clearly from the report on the second hearing, which mentions his stay in Bas-Zaire from that date. With regard to the exact status of the person who helped him escape from the hospital, it is pointed out that the author, a novice in that respect, never really knew whether the person was a nurse or a doctor, a distinction which is even more difficult to draw in the DRC. As far as that person's name is concerned, it is natural that the author should have had difficulty remembering it, since, for the sake of security, an accomplice will rarely reveal his name. The author mentioned one name at the beginning of the hearing, but then gave up. 5.3 With regard to the other arguments put forward by the State party, the author refers to the additional statement dated 4 June 1998, which was submitted to the Swiss Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters. In it, the author explains why he chose to travel to Europe by plane and how he organized his trip so that he would not be spotted. He had actually obtained a return plane ticket that belonged to a Zairian citizen residing in Italy. He also states that he no longer has any contact with his family, which means that he is unable to obtain certain c Seid Mortesa Aemei v. Switzerland, Communication No. 34/1995. d X, Y and Z v. Sweden, Communication No. 61/1996. 118