CAT/C/49/D/385/2009 supervision and interrogation on a regular basis of M.A.F., the State party considers that it could have been expected that some form of written evidence would have been presented in support of the claimants’ account of events. 4.5 The State party considers that the complainants’ oral and written submissions contain elements of vagueness and inconsistency. In particular, the complainants have failed to provide any explanation as to the nature of the activities of M.A.F.’s brother other than the assertion, which was not submitted until the oral hearing at the Migration Court, that he was contacted on a number of occasions by army officers who provided him with documents. The State party considers it highly improbable that the complainants would have no information about the political activities of M.A.F.’s brother if they had in fact led to the severe consequences described by the complainants. 4.6 The State party considers the complainants’ submission as to how they were able to leave Libya in spite of the alleged persecution by the authorities to be vague and inconsistent. Before leaving Libya, the complainants claim to have received help from a man who informed them that M.A.F. was to be arrested before 1 September 2007. The complainants did not initially provide any information about this man, and claimed only at the oral hearing before the Migration Court that he was a friend of M.A.F.’s father, who is a retired colonel, without providing an explanation as to why the man had information about the alleged arrest warrant. The complainants submitted divergent information regarding a second man who helped them escape, claiming in a written submission by their counsel to the Migration Board of 19 September 2007 that he was an acquaintance of Z.A.’s parents, and in the interview by the Migration Board on 10 December 2007 that he was a relative of Z.A. In the written submission by the complainants’ counsel to the Migration Board, it is claimed that the police, in connection with M.A.F.’s release from detention in 2006, told him to disappear from the country. The State party would therefore have expected the complainants to have been able to obtain authentic passports. The State party considers that the complainants have submitted vague and inconsistent information in important respects, without providing a satisfactory explanation, which weakens the credibility of their submissions. 4.7 The State party notes that the complainants, during the course of the procedure before the Swedish authorities, added allegations of significance to their application for asylum. It was not until the oral hearing at the Migration Court that the complainants claimed that M.A.F. was regularly subjected to interrogations during the period 2003-2006, that he was subjected to supervision and forced to sign documents on a regular basis for about four months in connection with his release from prison in 2006, and that a warrant for his arrest had been issued in March 2007 following his refusal to comply with the demands of the authorities from late 2006. The State party considers it improbable that the Libyan authorities would take so long to act on his refusal to obey them. Furthermore, in the written submission by the complainants’ counsel to the Migration Board of 19 September 2007, it was stated that the Libyan police had not caused M.A.F.’s wife or children any physical harm, but in the appeal to the Migration Court of 9 January 2008, it was claimed that on 23 November 2002 Z.A. was pushed by police in a manner that caused her to lose the foetus she was carrying. The appeal also stated, in addition to what was submitted to the Migration Board, that the police beat M.A.F. on one occasion, causing him a broken nasal bone. The State party considers that the addition of allegations of importance subsequent to the Migration Board’s decision to reject the complainants’ applications, without a satisfactory explanation as to why this information was initially omitted, weakens the credibility of the complainants’ submissions. 4.8 The State party further notes that the complainants’ allegations before the Committee are not completely consistent with their statements to the Swedish migration authorities. Before the Committee, the complainants submit that M.A.F. was interrogated 5