CAT/C/40/D/293/2006 page 7 The only “collaborator” that the complainant identified was Mr. J.C., who, according to the complainant, also had problems with the law. However, no information has been provided on his current situation. Given the lack of evidence, or even an allegation, that Mr. O.E.V. and his collaborators were acting in an official capacity, the complaint should be declared inadmissible. 4.8 The complaint is also manifestly groundless, since there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of the threats and persecution, nor is there any evidence that Mr. O.E.V. is seeking to “eliminate” the complainant and his family or would have any interest in doing so. The complaint is based on mere speculation, which is neither plausible nor rational. 4.9 The State party affirms that the complainant’s testimony at the hearing for his daughter-in-law contradicts his allegations before the Committee and before the Canadian authorities in the context of his own complaint. He had alleged that he had received death threats, including against his family, during his three-month stay in the State of Hidalgo from 14 June to 16 October 2002. On 11 October 2005, however, in support of his daughter-in-law’s asylum claim, he declared that he had not been the victim of any threats or persecution during that time. Taking this contradiction into account, the State party maintains that the complainant’s allegations are not credible. Furthermore, the State party maintains that the complainants failed to show that no domestic remedies were available against Mr. O.E.V.’s alleged collaborators. 4.10 Besides its comments on admissibility, the State party maintains that the complaint should be dismissed on the merits, for the above-mentioned reasons regarding the lack of basic merit. Complainants’ comments 5.1 As regards the admissibility of the communication vis-à-vis the complainant’s wife and daughter, counsel asserts that their status is very precarious and that they are liable to be expelled from Canada. The wife and daughter should form an integral part of the complaint because, in addition, they are also in danger as members of the family. 5.2 The complainant also considers that he has submitted sufficient evidence to have the protection of the State party. Concerning Mr. O.E.V., he states that this person enjoys the support of very powerful people in the Mexican Government and that his daughter-in-law was persecuted by men who seemed to be police officers and who resembled the men who had been working in the compound of the Attorney General’s Office. As to the State party’s observation that Mr. O.E.V. is no longer a public official, the complainant emphasizes that he has been mayor of Mexico City and that he has contacts with powerful public officials in Mexico. Consequently, the complainant and his family are at risk of being tortured by serving public officials and former officials. 5.3 The complainant has always affirmed that in the State of Hildago, where they remained in hiding, he did not receive death threats. However, the threats were received at his home in the Federal District where his parents lived. Contrary to the Government’s statement, he did not say that he had not been the victim of threats or persecution during this period, but rather that he had not directly received threats in the State of Hildago.