CAT/C/66/D/776/2016 while the male complainant alleges to have been violently attacked and beaten on 16 April 2011 by the individuals who had been threatening him through telephone calls, he does not claim to have needed or sought medical treatment following this incident, and does not provide documentation indicating that he was attacked or subjected to torture. The Committee also notes that the complainants do not provide any further details about the incident or its aftermath in the communication, and do not explain why they believe that the attackers were also responsible for the telephone calls. The Committee further notes that, while the male complainant contests the determination of the Swiss authorities that the threatening letter he received in March 2011 was inauthentic because it was written partially in English, he has not described the contents of this letter and has not provided it to the Committee. The Committee notes that he has not furnished any other documentation to support his claims that he received threatening telephone calls on an almost daily basis while working for the Swiss Embassy in Islamabad. The Committee observes that after the threatening telephone calls, letter and attack, the complainants did not inform the Swiss Embassy, and chose to return to Pakistan in September 2011 after a two-month stay in Switzerland, with the intention of remaining in Pakistan. The Committee notes that, even though the complainants learned, two months before leaving Pakistan, that the criminal complaint for blasphemy had been filed, they voluntarily returned to the country a few months later. The Committee considers that in these circumstances, the fact of the complainants’ return to Pakistan does not support their claim that they feared for their lives due to the alleged threats, attack and criminal complaint. The Committee also notes that the alleged threats and attack occurred eight to nine years ago on account of the complainant’s former employment position, which he left in 2011, and that it does not necessarily follow that either complainant would be at risk of being tortured if returned to Pakistan today. 7.9 The Committee further notes that, while the complainants claim to have left Pakistan for the second time in an emergency on 1 October 2011 after having discovered that they were subject to an arrest warrant, they had already planned to return to Switzerland on the same date, by purchasing a round-trip air travel ticket. The Committee observes that, while the complainants assert that an arrest warrant was issued against both of them, they do not provide details or documentation to support that claim, and do not indicate why the female complainant would be subject to an arrest warrant when the criminal complaint and First Information Report concerned only the male complainant. The Committee also observes that the complainants do not allege to have had personal contact with the police or with other individuals accusing them of blasphemy, and do not claim to have encountered problems when leaving Pakistan in October 2011, despite the alleged arrest warrant. The Committee further notes that the communication does not contain substantiated information on any persecution faced by the female complainant. The Committee observes that the complainants had two opportunities to be heard by the Federal Office for Migration, during interviews in 2011 and 2014. The Committee considers that, while the complainants contest the determination that the First Information Report and anonymous letters are inauthentic, the arguments they raise do not demonstrate that the assessment of the documents by the Swiss asylum authorities was clearly arbitrary or erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee also notes that, while the complainants contest the authorities’ determination that the letters from church officials were merely letters of convenience, they have not provided those letters to the Committee. 7.10 The Committee expresses concern that, under section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, blasphemy carries a mandatory death sentence, although the State has never executed anyone for the offence.15 The Committee is also deeply concerned by reports that it is not uncommon in Pakistan for community members to falsely accuse individuals of blasphemy and violently attack them in mobs, without effective prevention or intervention efforts by the State.16 In this regard, the Committee refers to its concluding observations issued in 15 16 10 See, e.g., the chapter on Pakistan in Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018 (New York, 2018). E.g., United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan, document HCR/EG/PAK/17/01, January 2017, pp. 39–40; Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, State of Human Rights in 2017 (Lahore, 2018), pp. 3–4; United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2018 Annual Report (Pakistan chapter) (Washington, D.C., 2018). GE.19-13276