CAT/C/51/D/438/2010 The facts as presented by the complainants 2.1 The complainants lived in Tunis until September 2000. In 1998, the first complainant, together with two friends, supported families of political prisoners and the Ennahda political party, including L.S., the party’s leader, who was released in November 2007. In September 2000, the complainant’s friends were arrested by the Tunisian secret service; shortly thereafter the second complainant’s shop was searched. Fearing persecution, the complainants decided to leave the country. 2.2 On 7 October 2000, the complainants departed from Tunisia and travelled to Switzerland where they filed an application for asylum on 12 October 2000. While they were in Switzerland, several summonses were sent to their home in Tunis. On 10 June 2002, the Swiss Federal Office for Refugees (now the Federal Office for Migration) rejected their application and ordered their expulsion. On 20 October 2002, the complainants asked for a reconsideration of the negative decision, providing new evidence. On 7 November 2002, the Office for Refugees rejected the request. On 5 December 2005, the Swiss Asylum Appeal Commission, (now replaced by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court) rejected the complainants’ appeal. On 18 January 2006, the complainants filed another request for reconsideration with the Federal Office for Refugees, which the latter decided not to consider on its merits on 27 February 2006. On an unspecified date, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the complainants’ appeal on formal grounds as they failed to pay related costs. On 7 December 2006, the complainants were repatriated to Tunisia. 2.3 Upon arrival in Tunisia, the complainants were stopped and questioned separately by officials. Since the first complainant was in very poor health, he was not arrested but admitted to hospital for a day. The second complainant was given a summons from the Tunisian secret service for both of them. They complied with the summons and were interrogated. The second complainant was further summoned and interrogated again as to her husband’s contacts in Switzerland and was warned that he was not allowed to leave the country. The first complainant was interrogated at the Ministry of the Interior as to whether he had supported the families of political prisoners and whether he had been in contact with politically active Tunisians in Switzerland. He was not arrested on health grounds but placed under police surveillance. The police visited the complainants’ house twice a week over several months. In addition, the complainants were called for questioning to a police station. According to the first complainant, the authorities suspected him of Ennahda membership and of being in contact with its leader, L. S. Under strong psychological pressure, the complainants left Tunisia for Libya, on fake passports, on 21 July 2007. 2.4 On 30 July 2007, the complainants returned to Switzerland and filed another application for asylum. On 1 and 27 August 2007 and 22 April 2008, they were questioned by the Swiss asylum authorities. On 8 September 2008, the Federal Office for Migration rejected their application and ordered their expulsion. Counsel subsequently appealed the decision. On 29 October 2010, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. On 4 November 2010, the Office for Migration issued an order for the complainants to leave Switzerland by 2 December 2010. 2.5 The complainants submit that the Swiss asylum authorities did not find their accounts credible for the following reasons. First, their second asylum application was based on the first complainant’s political activities which were not deemed credible during the first asylum proceedings. Furthermore, his account of his involvement in political activities was inconsistent with his statements during the first asylum proceedings. Thus, during the first proceedings, he maintained that he had founded a group to support political prisoners’ families, whereas during the second asylum proceedings, he argued that he was a member of Ennahda. During the first asylum proceedings, the complainants contended that the police had searched their house and the shop only once, whereas during the second 3