CAT/C/43/D/348/2008 indicating that the complainant’s return would actually put him in danger or that he has no family members in Abidjan who can help him upon his return. 4.3 The State party also maintains that the complainant did not at any point during the proceedings claim to have been tortured or maltreated in the past.1 It adds that any persecution to which the complainant may have been subjected was the work of foreign third parties, and the Ivorian authorities could not be held responsible for the acts of such parties. As the Liberian rebels have not been active in Côte d’Ivoire since 2003, the State party asserts that future persecution of the complainant is unlikely. 4.4 With regard to the new evidence submitted to the Committee by the complainant, the State party asserts that these documents were not submitted during the proceedings before the domestic bodies, even though they are dated 2003 and 2004. Moreover, it adds that they contain clear contradictions of the facts as submitted by the complainant, as well as spelling errors. The certificate of displacement issued by the Red Cross is dated 11 October 2003 and the order to leave the village of Para, issued by the village chief, is dated 24 December 2004; however, the complainant reportedly maintained that he was held by Liberian rebels for about a year and a half following his abduction at the beginning of 2003, which is to say until February or March 2005. The State party recalls that, according to its general comment No. 1, considerable weight is to be given by the Committee to the conclusions of the organs of the State party.2 It emphasizes that the domestic bodies concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing the complainant would be at risk of torture, and that the complainant did not address the reasons that led the authorities of the State party to deny the existence of a genuine and serious risk of torture. 4.5 Furthermore, the State party asserts that the complainant has never claimed to have been politically active.3 It also asserts that the complainant was unable to provide precise and detailed information proving his allegations.4 The domestic bodies held that it was incomprehensible that villagers who were present when the complainant was abducted should, upon his return, have rejected him as a traitor and reported him to the soldiers. The State party adds that the army had no reason to persecute the complainant, an unassuming young man who is not politically active. The State party emphasizes, moreover, that the complainant has not managed to present a plausible case that he has lived in the region and, instead, has mentioned the names of villages located on the border with Ghana. Lastly, the State party maintains that, even if the allegations of the complainant were credible, according to the Committee’s consistent jurisprudence, article 3 of the Convention offers no protection to a complainant who alleges a fear of being arrested on his or her return. Comments by the complainant on the State party’s observations 5. On 5 April 2009, the complainant reiterated his account of the facts as submitted, adding that the western region of Côte d’Ivoire is still unstable owing to frequent incidents involving Liberian rebels who cross the border illegally to commit abuses. He emphasizes that he has been seriously traumatized by the killing of his father, which he says explains the discrepancies and contradictions in his account. He adds that the villagers consider him to be a foreign rebel and that he would be persecuted not only by third parties, but also by Ivorian government officials. He maintains that he has substantiated his claims with 1 2 3 4 4 A/53/44, annex IX (21 November 1997), paras. 8 (a) and (b). A/53/44, annex IX (21 November 1997), para. 9 (a). A/53/44, annex IX (21 November 1997), para. 8 (e); see communication No. 34/1995, Seid Mortesa Aemei v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 9 May 1997. A/53/44, annex IX (21 November 1997), para. 8 (g). GE.09-46730