CAT/C/62/D/710/2015 the complainant had paid the fee for the procedure, the judge could have ruled on his application for review but that, in the absence of such a payment, the application must be considered inadmissible. The Committee has noted the complainant’s argument that he is experiencing financial hardship because he is not permitted to work and that he was consequently unable to pay the fee for the review procedure. The Committee considered that, given the complainant’s personal circumstances, it was unfair to oblige him to pay the sum of 1,200 Swiss francs in order for his last application for review to be admissible. This view is based on the fact that the complainant was not authorized to work within the State party’s territory and that the assistance that he receives amounts to only 5 Swiss francs per day. It therefore seemed unreasonable to deny the complainant the possibility of applying for a review of his case on financial grounds considering his difficult financial circumstances.12 An appeal by the applicant to the Federal Administrative Court against the decision of the State Secretariat for Migration could not therefore be considered accessible in the circumstances. The Committee has therefore concluded that the argument that the complaint is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies did not stand in the present case and that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 With reference to article 22 (4) of the Convention and rule 113 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the Committee has found no other obstacle to the admissibility of the complaint. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 21 December 2016, the State party submitted observations on the merits of the communication. It explains that, in his first asylum application, the complainant had indicated that he was of Eritrean nationality, had lived in the Sudan from the age of 5 and feared persecution in Eritrea because of the political activities of his father, who had died in 1989. The Federal Administrative Court and the State Secretariat for Migration considered these assertions not credible in light of the clear contradictions and gaps in his account. The complainant used forged official documents in the procedure. 7.2 With regard to the second and third asylum applications, the State party maintains that the complainant declared himself to be of Sudanese nationality and mentioned the activities set out in his communication to the Committee. The State party explains that, even though the complainant mentioned during his hearing the detention and ill-treatment he is alleged to have suffered in the Sudan, his account was vague and general. As for the description of the political situation in the Sudan, the complainant did not manage to establish a link between it and his personal circumstances. The State Secretariat for Migration noted that the complainant was not able to specify clearly what his political activities in Switzerland were. It also noted contradictions in respect of the conditions in which he had been released. 7.3 The State party submits that the complainant does not present any new evidence in his communication to the Committee. The State party explains that the evidence presented to the Committee is essentially the same as that which the complainant submitted to the domestic authorities, with the letter from JEM-Switzerland updated and the photograph taken in Geneva replaced by another. 7.4 With regard to the human rights situation in the Sudan, the State party maintains that the country does not currently have any generalized violence, except in Darfur, where there is civil war, and Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states, where there is armed conflict. 13 The State party notes that, as he was born in Omdurman near Khartoum, the complainant does not come from one of the regions in conflict. 7.5 The State party explains that, in its judgment A.A. v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights noted, on the basis of various reports, that the security and human rights situation in the Sudan was alarming and had deteriorated in the months before the judgment. Nevertheless, the Court recalled that, in general, even in such situations, a 12 13 6 See C.M. v. Switzerland, (CAT/C/44/D/355/2008), para. 9.2. Amnesty International, The State of the World’s Human Rights 2015/16. GE.18-01489