CAT/C/53/D/473/2011 that the authorities had installed secret cameras and were filming protestors and that he was identified through the footage. 4.12 The State party submits that the asylum authorities established that the claims of Shahin Qadery, the second complainant, went against all logic. They considered it improbable that she was able to both inform her husband that he was being sought in Yazd, and explain to the Iranian authorities at their Yazd residence that he would not return while they were there; that the Iranian authorities would have left without further questions; and that she and her children would leave for Mehriz to join her husband without being followed. Moreover, the State party points out that the complainants omitted to declare that they had resided in Greece for four years prior to arriving in Switzerland. It was only through a criminal procedure against Mazyar Khademi, the fifth complainant, that this fact was revealed. Thus, the claims made by Shahin Qadery that the ETELAAT sought out her husband in Iraq just before the family departed are not true to reality. 4.13 The State party further submits that the asylum authorities found that the documents provided by the complainants to support their claims were not credible. The Swiss asylum authorities noted that the pardon requests presented by Mr. Khademi had no evidential value as they had been written by him. The letter from the tribal elder in Marivan, confirming the problems that Mr. Khademi allegedly faced, and the letter confirming his activities in the KDPI could also not be counted as evidence as they were purposely drafted to support his claims. A copy of Mr. Khademi’s request for five days’ leave from detention in Marivan and the postal receipt could not be accepted as evidence either. Regarding the copies of legal documents from Yazd, which were lodged by Mr. Khademi with the Swiss asylum authorities, it was considered that they could have been falsified and therefore could not be accepted as evidence. Moreover, when the Swiss asylum authorities requested Mr. Khademi to submit original copies of the judicial process against him, he produced a letter from an Iranian lawyer confirming that access to the original documents was impossible. The Swiss asylum authorities considered that the letter was not credible evidence, as it was again drafted with the purpose of supporting Mr. Khademi’s claims. Furthermore, the Swiss authorities determined that the lawyer who drafted the letter had not been involved in the defence of Mr. Khademi before the Revolutionary Tribunal. Furthermore, the asylum authorities established, based on information from the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, that the general rule was that the condemned received a copy of the judgement or, at least, he or his mandated lawyer could obtain copies at a later stage. Mr. Khademi was unable to convincingly argue against those findings and explain why he had not used a lawyer who had defended him before the Revolutionary Tribunal to obtain the required legal documents. 4.14 As regards the complainants’ other allegations, the State party notes, first of all, that the Swiss authorities could not find any evidence of the alleged death sentence against Mr. Khademi, which was subsequently commuted to a less severe sentence. The Kurdish media is known to actively draw attention to cases of the death penalty against Kurdish individuals, therefore Mr. Khademi’s case would have caught the interest of the population. Secondly, the Swiss authorities found that Mr. Khademi and Shahin Qadery, the first and second complainants, did not need to make false allegations that Mr Khademi had been attacked at knife point in Iraq in 2005 and was being sought by the ETELAAT a little before leaving Iraq. Those claims do not conform to the reality, as the family was already in Greece at the time. Thirdly, the Swiss authorities put forward that the audio files of the announcement of the death of Mr. Khademi’s father on Voice of Kurdistan radio could have been manipulated. Fourthly, the accounts of Ramyar Khademi, the third complainant were conflicting as, in his first asylum interview, he made no mention of having been detained for two days, an allegation which was only made in the second interview. Fifthly, the asylum authorities contended that Ramyar Khademi’s allegation that he was interrupted 9