no longer refugees. The issue of fear of future torture was not brought up by the defence counsel before the Court of Appeal, as the defence counsel, in view of the decision made by the District Court, did not believe that the Court of Appeal would agree to expulsion. 9.6 Counsel further draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that, although a Vietnamese interpreter was present during all interviews with the authors, it is claimed by the authors that there is a considerable difference between the dialects of the north and those of the south of Viet Nam. The interpreters used by the Swedish Immigration Board are normally from the north, whereas the authors are from the south. According to counsel, this circumstance explains some of the inconsistencies referred to by the State party. 9.7 In response to the State party's argument that the numerous accounts of shootings in connection with escapes from Viet Nam in the 1980s have in no case been possible to verify, counsel submits that this is logical. He submits that Vietnamese nationals already repatriated would have no interest in having this information confirmed and that it would be inappropriate for UNHCR to investigate and search for evidence against the very people they are assisting. 9.8 Counsel emphasizes that the reference of the State party in its initial observations and its supplementary comments dated 19 October 1999 to the cases of two other Vietnamese nationals who have been returned to Viet Nam should not be taken into account by the Committee, as every individual claim should be examined on its own merits. 9.9 Apart from counsel's comments applicable to both authors, he submits the following regarding the merits of the respective cases. The case of V.X.N. 10.1 Counsel argues that in its assessment of the risks faced by the author, the State party neglects to attach due importance to the result of the medical examination. The description of the physical sufferings of the author indicates that the inconsistencies referred to by the State party to raise doubts as to the author's credibility are to be expected from a person who tries to recount his experiences of torture. 10.2 Counsel notes the State party's argument that the author has not provided any evidence, i.e. a judgement that he was in fact sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and that it refers to certain "peculiarities" in relation to the author's stay in and escape from prison. Counsel submits that the judgement in Viet Nam was never transmitted directly to the author, but only to his defence counsel at the time, whose name he does not remember after 23 years. However, the author has given details about the trial itself, i.e. that it took place in the city of Nha Trang and that the investigation was done by the Khanh Hoa county authorities. 10.3 As to the "peculiarities" referred to by the State party, counsel submits that there is no reason to doubt the author's affirmation that his three eldest children were in fact conceived during the author's imprisonment. Prison guards could be bribed to leave prisoners and their visiting wives alone for some privacy, although it was formally forbidden. As to the unlikelihood to find any uninhabited islands in the area where the author claims to have hidden after his escape from prison, the existence of the thinly populated Vung Me island, outside Nha Trang, where the author hid can easily be confirmed. 10.4 Counsel further submits that the statements regarding prison sentencing attributed to the author during his initial interview in 1992 are the result of misunderstandings due to the fact that the author, after his 143