CAT/C/51/D/438/2010 A.A.A.G. Third, the first complainant supported the families of political prisoners and thus was indirectly connected to the leader of Ennahda, L.S. Fourth, it cannot be assumed that the complainants would be released, if questioned at the airport upon return, given that they have fled Tunisia twice and were subjected to prolonged and thorough scrutiny upon return in 2006. Leaving the country illegally entails a prison sentence between 15 days and 6 months. The complainants contend that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the Tunisian authorities would arrest and possibly convict them of dissident activities. 2.10 The complainants further submit that conditions of detention in Tunisia are extremely harsh and that the judicial system is deficient, in particular in politically motivated cases, and refer to reports of non-governmental organizations in that sense.2 In addition, the first complainant has serious health issues, as acknowledged by the Swiss authorities, and a prison sentence would put his life at risk and would subject him to inhuman and degrading treatment. The complaint 3. The complainants argue that their forcible return to Tunisia would constitute a breach by Switzerland of its obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 24 May 2011, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It recalls the facts of the case and notes the complainants’ argument before the Committee that they would be at risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment, if returned to their country of origin. It notes that they do not present any new elements that would call into question the decisions of the asylum authorities of the State party; neither do they explain the inconsistencies in their allegations revealed by the said authorities. 4.2 The State party further clarifies the asylum proceedings pursued by the complainants. It notes, in particular, that on 10 June 2002, the Federal Office for Refugees rejected the complainants’ application for asylum, submitted on 12 October 2000, considering that their allegations lacked credibility and that nothing in their case file led it to conclude that they would face treatment or punishment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, if forcibly returned to Tunisia. On 7 November 2002, the Federal Office for Refugees rejected the complainants’ request for reconsideration. On 5 December 2005, the Swiss Asylum Appeal Commission rejected their subsequent appeal. On 18 January 2006, the complainants filed another request for reconsideration, arguing that the first complainant had had to be admitted to a psychiatric asylum for treatment. On 27 February 2006, the Federal Office for Migration decided not to examine their request on the merits. On 1 May 2006, the Swiss Asylum Appeal Commission refused their request on formal grounds as they had failed to pay the required fee. On 7 December 2006, the complainants were repatriated to Tunisia and medical assistance was provided to them during the journey. 4.3 The State party further submits that on 30 July 2007, the complainants filed another application for asylum at Zurich airport. The complainants argued, in particular, that upon 2 Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2010: Tunisia”, available from http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2010/tunisia (3 December 2013); Amnesty International, “Tunisia – Amnesty International report 2010”, available from http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/tunisia/report-2010 (3 December 2013); Human Rights Watch “World Report 2010 – Tunisia”, available from http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2010/tunisia (3 December 2013). 5