CAT/C/62/D/710/2015 7.18 Regarding the copies of the birth certificate and the driver’s licence submitted by the complainant, the State party submits that they do not make it possible to establish the identity of the complainant or any risk of persecution in the case of his return. 7.19 The State party observes that the complainant does not argue that procedural errors have occurred. It is a case which has already been the subject of a comprehensive legal review by the national authorities that are specialized in this field. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that “it is within the purview of the courts of the States parties to the Convention to assess the facts and evidence in a case”, and that the Committee should examine facts and evidence only if it can be established that “the evidence was assessed in a patently arbitrary manner or one that amounted to a miscarriage of justice”.18 The State party argues that the submissions of the complainant do not show that its consideration of the matter has been flawed by any such irregularities. 7.20 The State party adds that the allegations and the evidence provided do not support the conclusion that deporting the complainant would expose him to a real, specific and personal risk of being subjected to torture. It invites the Committee to find that the complainant’s return to the Sudan would not constitute a violation of the State party’s international obligations under article 3 of the Convention. Comments by the complainant concerning the State party’s arguments 8.1 The complainant maintains that, although he has not been able to provide evidence of having been detained in 2005 and 2008, it cannot be concluded that his allegations are not credible. He notes that he gave details of the detentions during the hearing of 26 September 2014 at the State Secretariat for Migration. With regard to his detention in 2005, he told the Swiss authorities that he had been forced into a car by security officers who had blindfolded and handcuffed him as he was leaving a lecture at the university. He was tortured and questioned for three days. The second time he was detained, security officers and students of the National Congress Party came to look for him at his home. They held him for 21 days and again tortured him brutally. The complainant explained that they broke his arm, leg and foot. After 21 days, the complainant was released and left in a cement container. 8.2 The complainant adds that he gave a detailed account of his political activities in the Sudan. He spoke about the activities of the group and the fact that he had been required to make a speech expressing solidarity with a colleague whose mother had been killed following a bombing in the village of Attina in Darfur. He explained that many students had gathered for a demonstration when he made the speech. He recounted in detail how donations were collected and how he had got to know about JEM. He also informed the Swiss authorities that he had found out from his colleagues’ photographs what had really happened in Darfur. He demonstrated clearly that he was a member of JEM at university and had been actively involved in the organization. The complainant also submits that the letter from S.A. was not intended to give a detailed explanation of the complainant’s actual activities in the Sudan. He adds that he did not provide further details because the questions asked by the State party’s authorities were themselves very general. 8.3 Regarding his activities in Switzerland, the complainant recalls the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A.A. v. Switzerland that the situation of political opponents of the Sudanese Government was very precarious and that not only high-profile opponents, but anyone who opposed or was suspected of opposing the current regime was at risk of ill-treatment. That position was confirmed in the Court’s decision on A.F. v. France.19 8.4 The complainant recalls that he is the personal secretary to the President of the Swiss branch of JEM. During the hearing of 26 September 2014, he described his work in detail: in 2013, he had participated in a meeting of Geneva Call attended by high-profile opponents. He had helped to prepare the President’s address for that event and had given 18 19 GE.18-01489 See Ktiti v. Morocco (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010), para 8.7; and J.A.M.O. v. Canada (CAT/C/40/D/293/2006), para. 10.5. A.F. v. France, No. 80086/13, judgment of 15 January 2015. 9