CAT/C/49/D/385/2009 by Libyan security services between January 2001 and November 2002, while they stated to the Swedish migration authorities that this took place for about three years until 2003. 4.9 The complainants allegedly left Libya in May 2007. The State party submits that if the Committee, contrary to the position of the State party, should find that the complainants have substantiated the reasons stated for leaving their home country, there is little to suggest that they would be of interest to the Libyan authorities if deported there now. 4.10 The State party takes the view that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainants do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Since the complainants’ claim under article 3 fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 Prior to submitting his comments, the main complainant provided copies of records of medical visits and additional documents on 22 July 2010 and 2 November 2010. 5.2 On 10 January 2011, M.A.F. submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. The complainant attached copies of some of the supporting documentation submitted to the Swedish Migration Board and Migration Court. Regarding the alleged inconsistencies and vagueness in the evidence provided to the Swedish authorities, M.A.F. states that he left Libya under very stressful circumstances where he was very afraid, and in such situations it is not uncommon for a person not to remember everything in detail. He further states that persons participating in political activities with the Libyan opposition have to be very careful, and under these circumstances it is quite natural that his brother did not tell even close relatives about his activities, particularly as he had contacts with and cooperated with army officers. 5.3 M.A.F. further referred to his family’s two attempts to obtain residence in Norway and his efforts in travelling to Geneva as indicating that the complainants’ fear of violence from the Libyan authorities was real and well grounded. Additional comments by the parties 6.1 On 25 March 2011, the State party informed the Committee that, due to the security situation in Libya, Swedish authorities were not enforcing removals to the country, and requested that the communication be adjourned until further notice. 6.2 On 20 April 2012, M.A.F. provided additional information. He states that, while his initial claim concerned protection from the former Qaddafi Government, the complainants would still be at risk from the current Government. He notes that in March 2012, an armed clash occurred in the Abu Slem area in Tripoli, and an armed group kidnapped one of his brothers from his sister’s house. The kidnappers informed M.A.F.’s family that they belonged to the military council, but the military council claimed not to have any knowledge of the event when contacted by the family. M.A.F. states that he and his family would be at risk of kidnap if deported to Libya. He further states that his house was destroyed in the civil war, that residents of the Abu Slem area of Tripoli, where he lived, are at particular risk of being killed or kidnapped, and referred to reports on the health situation in Libya, as well as the risk of rape. M.A.F. further states that his wife’s cousins fought on the side of Qaddafi during the revolt, making her a target for revenge or torture. 6.3 On 10 May 2012, the State party provided additional information. The State party noted that, on 25 February 2010, M.A.F. submitted a new application to the Migration Board for re-examination of his case. M.A.F. claimed that the Libyan authorities subjected him to rape during his imprisonment in 2006, and submitted a copy of a medical journal 6