CAT/C/50/D/392/2009 to his political affiliations as a member of the UFC party since 1993, as a representative of the Coalition of Democratic Forces in 2005 and as a delegated monitor of the Electoral Commission on election day. The Board therefore did not believe that the complainant had been arrested and held from 27 April 2005 to 3 May 2006.1 4.3 The PRRA application was based chiefly on the same claims that the complainant had made before the Immigration and Refugee Board. The complainant had added that he had written and produced a play entitled Togo: A Reign of Terror, in which he denounced the current regime, and said that the play had been put on in various towns in 2004 and 2005. All the people who had been in the play had had to flee Togo because they had been targeted as opponents of the regime currently in power. The PRRA officer had noted that the complainant had not produced any credible documentation to corroborate his claim that he had put on such a play; nor had he explained why he had not submitted this information when he was applying for asylum. As for the general situation in Togo, the officer had taken note of the documentation submitted by the complainant and other reports regarding the commission of serious human rights violations during the 2005 elections. The current Government has, however, taken steps to improve its justice system and to combat corruption and impunity, particularly with respect to the abuses committed in 2005. The Government also reached a broad political agreement with opposition parties in April 2006. In addition, in June 2005 it established the High Commission for Repatriates and Humanitarian Action to ensure that protective measures and assistance were provided to persons who were returning to the country after having fled from the conflict that had broken out after the 2005 elections. The general population had played a very active part in the elections of 14 October 2007, which had taken place peacefully. In view of the complainant’s failure to prove that he would personally be at risk, and given the current situation in Togo, the officer had found that there was no evidence that the complainant would run a risk of being subjected to torture or to cruel or unusual treatment or punishment or that his life would be in danger in Togo. 4.4 In conjunction with his application for leave and judicial review of the PRRA officer’s decision, on 8 July 2009 the complainant submitted a request for a stay of the removal order that was to be carried out on 10 July 2009. On that same date, the Federal 1 GE.13-45411 In its decision, a copy of which is in the file, the Board draws attention to inconsistencies in the complainant’s account. For example, he claimed to have been sought by the authorities since 2002. Asked to explain why he had not been arrested until 2005 while continuing to carry out his political activities, he replied that he was not sleeping at home, but was instead moving from place to place, and that it would have taken the deployment of thousands of soldiers to enter every house in his neighbourhood to find him. The Board rejected these explanations as unreasonable and did not believe that the complainant had been targeted by the authorities in Togo before 2005. The document entitled “Mandate for Coalition Representatives” which he furnished bore the signature of the Coalition’s Chairperson, but that signature was a photocopy. The voting card shown by the complainant to the Board contained errors in the entries showing his age and profession. Since he claimed that, as a Coalition representative, he had to oversee the registration and issuance of voting cards, he was asked to explain why he had not corrected the errors on his own voting card. He replied that he had not been at liberty to do so, but that he had reported the errors to the Coalition. He became totally confused when asked to state when and how he had reported those errors. The Board had found that the complainant had not proven that he had been appointed as a representative of the Coalition for the 2005 elections. The complainant could not give a credible explanation for why, in his presentation of the facts of the case, he had failed to mention that he had reported the first visit of Ms. S.T. to the Coalition authorities at a meeting on 7 April 2005, after which he had apparently been assigned bodyguards when travelling, even though he had reported having informed the Coalition of the second visit of Ms. S.T. Nor did the Board give any weight to his UFC membership card, which was dated 28 July 2005, a date on which he was allegedly in prison. In addition, the explanations he gave for how he had obtained it were contradictory. 5