CAT/C/34/D/222/2002 page 4 against Z. E. and suspended for the time being owing to the absence of the individual concerned, but that they will be immediately resumed upon his return to Pakistan. The President of CLA also refers to three death sentences passed on Christians under article 295c of the Pakistani Criminal Code. The complainant draws attention, with particular reference to reports by Amnesty International and the Asian Human Rights Commission, to the risks that declared apostates face when they come before the Pakistani justice system. 3.3 The complainant also submits a letter from his father dated 20 June 2002, explaining that under pressure from the Muslim Students Federation the police have been going to his home every month to try and arrest his son pursuant to article 295c of the Criminal Code. The letter makes it plain that the complainant is accused of having insulted the Prophet, cast the Koran into disrepute and spurned Islam, and can therefore expect the death penalty. 3.4 The complainant explains that, even if he were not to be arrested, his life and physical safety would be in danger because the police would afford him no protection against threats from his former fellow students and supporters of the Muslim Students Federation. Comments by the State party on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By letter dated 3 February 2003, the State party indicated that it did not challenge the admissibility of the complaint. It added that the deportation order against the complainant would not be enforced until the Committee lifted its precautionary measure. 4.2 By letter dated 28 May 2003, the State party submitted its comments on the merits of the complaint. It began by setting out the reasons why, following a detailed review of the complainant’s allegations, the Swiss Asylum Review Commission, like the Federal Office for Refugees, was not convinced that Z. E. was seriously at risk of prosecution if deported to Pakistan. 4.3 In its decision dated 5 August 2002, the Asylum Review Commission found it surprising that the complainant, Christian by background and religion, had been able to practice his religion, visit Christian prisoners every week and attend Christian congresses abroad, sometimes for several months each year, while on the other hand being the President of the faculty Muslim Students Federation without his fellow students noticing that he was not a Muslim. Such a situation, if true, at the very least indicated that there was a modicum of tolerance in Pakistan, even assuming that the complainant had concealed his religion on being appointed President of the Federation. Indeed, the State party argues, the fact that the complainant had been prepared to serve as President of the Muslim Students Federation at his faculty showed beyond any doubt that he was not all worried about being disturbed or threatened. 4.4 Other evidence also challenged the notion that the complainant had been persecuted by the authorities or was wanted for blasphemy: between January and July 1999, according to the State party, the complainant lived undisturbed at his family’s second home in Johannabad, some 20 kilometres from Lahore. Although he claims to have been at his uncle’s home in Karachi in August and September 1999, where again he encountered no problems, the complainant had a new passport issued in Lahore on 12 August 1999. The State party argues that the complainant must plainly have stated his religion in order to obtain the passport.