CAT/C/54/D/440/2010 to the authorities of the State party indicates that, after his alleged return to Guinea, the complainant worked in his cousin’s coffee bar, where the meeting of UFDG delegates was held on 20 September 2009. During that meeting, mention was allegedly made of the demonstration to be held at Conakry stadium. The complainant claims that he participated in this demonstration. At the 15 January 2010 hearing, he stated that he had not been politically active in Guinea. 4.6 With regard to the complainant’s credibility, the national authorities found that the complainant’s allegations were neither sufficiently substantiated nor pla usible. Several facts are inconsistent with the complainant’s life experience and are illogical and vague. In the first place, the complainant has not submitted any evidence of his alleged returns to Guinea after having submitted his second application for asylum in Switzerland on 6 August 2009. Independently of this fact, the State party finds it illogical that the complainant, who maintained during his initial asylum hearing that he had been persecuted in Guinea, would have returned to his country twice, 6 moved in with his aunt and worked in his cousin’s coffee bar, whose customers included military personnel in civilian attire, without encountering the slightest problem. It was all the more illogical in that one of his returns to Guinea supposedly took pl ace shortly after he had lodged his second asylum application. 4.7 With regard to his alleged arrest in Conakry stadium and subsequent detention at the Alpha Yaya military camp, the complainant has not provided details or specific evidence. When he appeared before the national authorities, in three instances, he gave evasive replies to questions asked of him. 7 In addition, he gave a superficial account of the treatment to which he was allegedly subjected at Conakry stadium, relying on generalities. 8 Similarly, the complainant does not provide concrete and precise evidence of his transfer to the military camp and his subsequent detention. The State party therefore considers that the complainant’s alleged arrest and detention seem implausible. 4.8 When appearing before the national authorities, the complainant claimed that he had left Guinea with a forged passport because he felt persecuted. However, he was unable to give either the birth-date used in this passport or the name of the issuing State, 9 despite the fact that it would have been in his interest to be able to reply in a believable manner during an identity check. With regard to the five summonses and the wanted-persons notice, the State party notes that, given the dates of those documents, the complainant could have transmitted them to the Federal Office for Migration before that Office issued its decision on 10 February 2010 (second asylum procedure). Moreover, it is difficult to understand how the complainant could have left his country on 31 October 2009 without any difficulty, given that the wanted -persons notice was dated 26 October 2009. In view of these circumstances, it is also surprising that the transmittal of the aforementioned documents by mail had not been possible before then. In addition, the complainant appears to have made no effort to find out whether, following his escape, he was wanted by the authorities, which the State party finds unconvincing. 10 The State party adds that, irrespective of the fact that those documents can be obtained easily in Guinea, they do not contain evidence of his persecution. __________________ 6 7 8 9 10 GE. 15-10885 The complainant notes only one return to Guinea in the communication submitted to the Committee. Record of the hearing of 2 February 2010. Ibid. Record of the hearing of 15 January 2010 Record of the hearing of 2 February 2010. 5/7