CAT/C/48/D/382/2009 as well as the arrest warrant issued against him by the National Intelligence Agency of the country. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 27 October 2009, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication, without any comments on its admissibility. 4.2 The State party recalls that the complainant left the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 25 December 2007 on board a plane to Rome, via Paris. He arrived in Switzerland by car. The State party argues that the complainant based his allegations of risk of torture solely on the existence of the arrest warrant against him and a medical certificate for dental treatment. Those facts have been duly considered in the decisions of the Federal Office for Migration of 14 January 2009 and of the Federal Administrative Tribunal of 16 March 2009. In addition, the State party notes that the complainant failed to explain the incoherence and contradictions of his allegations as identified by the competent Swiss authorities. Since the complainant submitted to the Committee only the rulings of the decisions, without their justification, together with the arrest warrant, the State party considers the arguments of the complainant to be misleading. 4.3 Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence1 and its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22,2 the State party asserts that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that he faces a personal, real and foreseeable risk of torture if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. According to the State party, the existence of a risk of torture must be evaluated in light of the evidence which cannot be limited to mere allegations or suspicions. While noting the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the State party contends that this situation is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that the complainant would be at risk of torture if returned. 4.4 Referring to the decisions by the relevant asylum authorities in the complainant’s case, the State party states that the complainant used to live in Kinshasa and not in the East which has been the least stable part of the country. According to the State party, the political situation in the country has become less strained since the departure of Jean-Pierre Bemba in 2007. 4.5 In addition, the complainant’s allegations concerning his supposed beating by the security forces during the demonstrations of 22 March 2007 for wearing a cap bearing the image of Bemba’s MLC lack credibility, in particular due to contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant’s assertions. Moreover, the State party does not consider the medical certificate of the complainant’s dental treatment relevant as it does not describe the sources of dental problems. Importantly, it does not suggest in any respect that the complainant would be at risk of torture if returned to the country of origin. Finally, the State party notes that the complainant has not submitted any further evidence to prove that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in the past. 4.6 In the State party’s view, the complainant’s allegations of his political activity were not credible as he could not establish that he had been politically active. Moreover, the complainant could not provide any details about his involvement or membership in MLC. 1 The State party also refers to the communications No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, paras. 10.2 and 10.5, and No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5. 2 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/53/44), annex IX, para. 6. 4