CAT/C/62/D/710/2015 Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case.25 10.4 The Committee notes that the complainant claims that he became an active member of JEM while he was studying at university in the Sudan; that in 2005 he was detained and tortured for three days by the Government of the Sudan; and that he was arrested again at his home in 2008 and detained for three weeks by the authorities, who asked him to provide information on JEM. 10.5 In that regard, the Committee notes that the State party considers that the author has not provided any explanation of the circumstances of his detention in the Sudan in 2005 and 2008 and has failed to produce any evidence to support his allegations that he was tortured in detention. While the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that he had submitted to the State Secretariat for Migration sufficient details of his detention in 2005 and 2008 and his political activities in the Sudan, the Committee observes that the State party’s authorities considered these statements to be vague, general and undermined by major inconsistencies. The Committee notes that, as a result, the State party’s authorities concluded that the statements were not credible. 10.6 It also notes that the State party’s authorities emphasized that the author had not provided any explanation of why he had lied about his citizenship during his first asylum procedure. In this connection, the Committee notes the complainant’s explanations that he gave a false nationality during his first asylum application for fear of persecution by the Sudanese authorities on account of his political activities prior to his departure from the Sudan, and that he had been poorly advised by a trafficker who said that he would be more likely to be recognized as a refugee in the State party if he said he was Eritrean. However, the Committee notes that the State party considers that the fact that the complainant misled the national authorities is an additional indication that undermines the credibility of his claims of torture. 10.7 With regard to the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, the Committee notes the complainant’s arguments that, since his arrival in the State party, he had continued his political activities for JEM, participating in conferences and meetings of the Sudanese opposition, including a meeting organized by Geneva Call, and that he had been appointed personal secretary to the President of JEM-Switzerland on account of his activism. It also notes that the complainant was photographed during these events together with members of JEM. 10.8 The Committee also notes that the State party’s authorities considered the complainant’s accounts of his political activities in Switzerland to be vague, general and in keeping with those of an ordinary member of JEM-Switzerland, being mainly limited to the activities of an observer and photographer at meetings, including his passive participation in the 2013 meeting of Geneva Call. The Committee notes that the State party considers that, based on his political activities in Switzerland and his low political profile, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he is at risk of suffering treatment that would violate the Convention if he were to be returned to the Sudan. According to the State party, the complainant’s activities are in keeping with those of an ordinary member of JEMSwitzerland and his situation is clearly different from that in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A.A. v. Switzerland, which describes a much more public political profile that grew in importance over the years. The Committee notes the State party’s explanations to the effect that its national authorities took account of that judgment and the risk profiles referred to in previous decisions but concluded that the complainant does not have a particular political profile that would make him likely to be a target for persecution by the Sudanese authorities. 10.9 In that regard, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to demonstrate convincingly that his political activities would attract the interest of the Sudanese authorities or that the authorities in his home country are looking for him and that he would face a personal risk of being tortured if returned to the Sudan. The Committee notes that Gibril Ibrahim Mohamed’s letter of 11 October 2017 was submitted by the 25 12 See, inter alia, Alp v. Denmark (CAT/C/52/D/466/2011), para. 8.3. GE.18-01489