CAT/C/45/D/344/2008 7.6 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the events at which the complainant was reportedly present took place in the context of the presidential elections, and that, since that time, the human rights situation has considerably improved. It also notes that, according to the State party, the existence of impunity does not as such mean that those who have witnessed atrocities are now persecuted in Togo. It notes that domestic bodies have pointed out a series of implausibilities in the complainant’s account, such as the inconsistencies between the numerous testimonies collected by the LTDH and the complainant’s testimony, which give opposing versions of the same events; that, given the extent of the protests and the violent acts that were committed, it would not have been possible for the complainant not to have heard about these events until the day after, especially if they took place at the Bé lagoon; that the way in which the complainant reportedly surprised the soldiers, the fact that the soldiers went into the water in order to chase him even though he was in his canoe, and that he then reportedly got into the water even though it would have been easier for him to get away in the boat are particularly implausible; and, lastly, that the date of his father’s death does not coincide with the sequence of events as described by the complainant. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that, assuming that his testimony is credible, it does not mean that this one fact would constitute a substantial ground for believing that, if returned to Togo, he would be subjected to torture. 7.7 Having taken into account the arguments set out by the parties, the Committee notes that the complainant has not provided evidence of a real, present and foreseeable risk. It considers that the complainant’s account contains factual discrepancies that make it implausible, in particular with regard to the allegation that he was not aware of the violence that took place on the day he was actually present; and that only his uncle’s testimony saying that soldiers in civilian clothes continue to harass the tenants in his house could substantiate the claim of present risk. The Committee further notes that the complainant was heard by the Swiss authorities on three occasions and that they tried, despite the lack of documentation or testimony in support of the complainant’s claims, to shed light on the facts of the case; and that the complainant was also heard by the domestic courts, which substantiated the denial of his request for asylum. The main issue being whether the complainant currently runs a risk of being tortured if he was deported to Togo, there is no substantive evidence that, several years after the events in question, a real, personal and foreseeable risk still exists.3 7.8 Taking into account all information made available to it, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if deported to his country of origin. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the deportation of the complainant to Togo would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 3 GE.10-46944 See communication No. 309/2006, R.K. et al. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 16 May 2008, paragraph 8.5. 9