CAT/C/45/D/344/2008 2008, some of those who had fled Togo during the presidential elections returned to their country, and no persecution was reported. 4.4 The State party adds that legislative elections were held on 14 October 2007 and that, according to several independent sources, the electoral process was carried out in a broadly satisfactory way. The State party considers that it was this development and the improvement of the human rights situation in Togo that had led the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid to consider that the conditions for re-establishing full cooperation between the European Union and Togo had been fulfilled. The impunity that the complainant refers to remains a problem, but several signs of improvement have been observed, with more than 30 State officials reportedly having been brought to justice for their involvement in robberies. Lastly, the State party notes that the existence of impunity does not as such mean that people who have seen or reported atrocities are currently persecuted by the authorities. Assuming that the complainant’s presentation is credible, this alone is not a substantial ground for believing that he would be subject to torture in the event of his return to Togo. However, the State party contests the credibility of the complainant’s allegations. 4.5 The State party refers to the views of domestic bodies such as the Federal Office for Migration (ODM) and the Federal Administrative Tribunal (TAF), which pointed out factual discrepancies that made the presentation implausible. The complainant submitted to the TAF a copy of an article from the magazine Le Point, dated 2 March 2005, which was supposed to attest to the truthfulness of his account. According to this article, following the violence of the day before, four bloody corpses were fished out of the Bé lagoon on 28 February 2005. However, this article describes only this specific incident, and the complainant and his father are not mentioned. The article also does not describe the nature of the violence that occurred, while the report by the Togolese Human Rights League (LTDH), to which the Swiss authorities referred, describes these events in detail and gives an alternative version to that described by the complainant. The TAF took into account the statements made by the complainant, to the effect that he did not witness a murder, but simply bodies being carried and then thrown into the water. Furthermore, the complainant did not give the same version of events as the LTDH. According to the LTDH, the soldiers who controlled the area surrounding the lagoon reportedly fired gunshots, used tear-gas grenades and committed several murders at the Bé lagoon itself. The State party also considers it unlikely that the complainant heard about these events only the day after, even though these were large-scale events that took place in the area where he lived. The TAF also pointed out time discrepancies – according to the LTDH, the bodies were reportedly fished out in the afternoon of the following day, not the morning. The victims reportedly drowned, but this does not tally with the complainant’s testimony. Lastly, although the death of the complainant’s father has been proven, the date of his death does not seem to coincide with the sequence of events as presented by the complainant. The State party doubts that the army imprisoned the complainant’s father for six months before killing him. It would seem therefore that the complainant’s father certainly died in violent circumstances, but not those described by the complainant. The discrepancies between the complainant’s testimony and the descriptions provided by the LTDH, as well as the gaps in his testimony, led the TAF to dismiss any risk to the complainant if he were to return to his country of origin. 4.6 With regard to the allegation of a violation of article 22 of the Convention, the State party recalls that no removal order for the complainant has been issued or envisaged since the Committee’s request for interim protection measures. Article 3 protects people from being returned when there is a risk of torture. This provision does not guarantee a high standard of living in the State where the complainant is located. The State party adds that the obligations that may be inferred from article 22 of the Convention cannot go beyond the substantive provisions of the Convention. At all events, in the light of the benefits granted 6 GE.10-46944