PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture this General Comment.257 In Sections 4.3 and 3.2.13 of this Handbook, which deal with the substantive aspects of the prohibition against the removal of individuals to countries where they are in danger of being subjected to torture (principle of non-refoulement), relevant issues regarding the substantiation of the claims before the HRC and the CAT Committee are further discussed. The author should anticipate the supporting documentation that might be needed to bolster the case. For example, the author should submit copies, including copies translated into a working language if necessary, of relevant local laws that are referred to in his or her narrative.258 Other types of documentary evidence that might be relevant, depending on the facts, include copies of the following: witness statements, police reports, decisions by local courts or tribunals, photographs, medical and psychological reports including autopsies if relevant, and other official documentation.259 If the author cannot submit certain relevant documents, he or she should explain why that is the case. For example, it may be that the details of a certain arrest warrant are relevant to the facts of a complaint. In such a case, it would be advisable, and indeed expected, that a copy of the warrant be submitted. If, however, a copy of the warrant is not made available to the author by the State party, the author should explain that this is the case.260 Ancillary material, which is not specifically related to the facts of the case, may be helpful. For example, an NGO report about conditions inside a particular prison provides support for an author who is alleging that the conditions in that prison 257 In General Comment No.1, the CAT Committee listed the following types of information as pertinent to an Article 3 claim: a Is the State concerned one in which there is evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights? b Has the author been tortured or maltreated by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity in the past? If so, was this the recent past? c Is there medical or other independent evidence to support a claim by the author that he or she has been tortured or maltreated in the past? Has the torture had after-effects? d Has the situation referred to in (a) above changed? Has the internal situation in respect of human rights altered? e Has the author engaged in political or other activity within or outside the State concerned which would appear to make him or her particularly vulnerable to the risk of being placed in danger of torture were he or she to be expelled, returned or extradited to the State in question? f Is there any evidence as to the credibility of the author? g Are there factual inconsistencies in the claim of the author? If so, are they relevant? 258 See Model Complaint, Textbox ii, paras. 6, 19. 259 See HRC, Kouidis v. Greece, Comm. No. 1070/2002, for an example of a complaint where the author failed to submit adequate information to bolster his claims. See, Model Complaint, Textbox ii. 260 See Model Complaint, Textbox ii, para. 22. 87