CAT/C/62/D/683/2015 images of him were taken during the meetings of a small committee and only in the presence of a few individuals. Moreover, the complainant himself stated that he did not take the floor at the meeting held at the Volkshaus. Instead, he claimed to have helped to organize the meeting and to contact the leaders of the Sudanese Revolutionary Front. 4.13 The State party recalls that the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court concluded during the first asylum procedure that the complainant’s allegations of his detention in the Sudan were not credible. According to the Federal Administrative Court, the information provided by the complainant on his Justice and Equality Movement role and activities was unconvincing. As part of the second asylum application, the complainant indicated that he had been a member of the Movement since late January 2013. However, Mr. Sharafedin’s letter of 25 March 2013 stated that the complainant had been a member of the Movement since 15 July 2012. The State party holds that the complainant has never provided clarification in that regard. 4.14 The State party maintains that the national authorities have carefully assessed the alleged risk of persecution in case of the complainant’s return to the Sudan and that no new allegations or evidence were submitted which could put the conclusion drawn into question. Referring to the conclusions of the two asylum procedures, the State party claims that considerable weight should be given to the findings of fact that were made by the organs of the State party concerned, unless the appreciation of facts or evidence were manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 25 In this case, the complainant did not submit that the national asylum proceedings suffered from any such irregularities. Moreover, the decision on the forcible removal of the complainant to the Sudan is in line with the general practice of the Swiss authorities with regard to persons who claim to have carried out political activities in Switzerland prior to their removal. 4.15 In conclusion, the State party reiterates that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to the Sudan. Consequently, the State party requests the Committee to find that the complainant’s removal to the Sudan would not amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention by Switzerland. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 31 March 2016, the complainant submitted his comments in response to the State party’s observations, in which he describes a confrontation between himself and a guard while in detention. The guard insulted the complainant, who retaliated by trying to attack the guard. Subsequently, the guard left the scene to search for a rifle and, when he came back, hit the complainant over the legs. The complainant suffered from severe pain thereafter. In addition, the complainant was taken to a nearby office, where he was repeatedly beaten. As to his allegations in that regard, the complainant refers to the report of an oral hearing of 28 March 2006 held during the first asylum procedure. 5.2 The complainant confirms the State party’s claim that he was not politically active prior to his departure from the Sudan. However, he disputes the assertion that he was never in conflict with the authorities, as he was detained for six months and described the circumstances of that incident in detail; testimony that he considers attests to the credibility of his allegations. He submits that the differences between first and second asylum hearings should be considered carefully, in order not to be interpreted to the detriment of the asylum seeker concerned.26 The complainant asserts that he described in detail the prison cell where he was interrogated. The more detailed descriptions furnished during the second asylum hearing should be considered as additional precisions rather than discrepancies. The complainant submits that the purpose of the first asylum interview is rather general, as it is meant to be an opportunity to provide information on identity, journey of arrival, etc. The complainant explains that he was not able to describe the medical treatment received by his injured brother while in prison since it was provided away from the complainant’s cell. He 25 26 See, for example, J.A.M.O. v. Canada (CAT/C/40/D/293/2006), para. 10.5; and Ktiti v. Morocco, (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010), para. 8.7. See European Court of Human Rights, M.A. v. Switzerland (application No. 52589/13), judgment of 18 November 2014, para. 60. 7