CAT/C/51/D/438/2010 Daawa Wal-Tabligh group. Before that, he had not been interested in politics. The State party also points to inconsistencies in the first complainant’s accounts regarding the places where he would hide when he knew that he was wanted by the authorities. Sometimes he submitted that he had slept in different places every night, sometimes he stated that he had stayed at the same place throughout the relevant period. He explained the inconsistencies by the fact that he had visited different persons in the daytime. The State party adds that during the first asylum proceedings, the first complainant stated that he had learnt from a neighbour that his two colleagues had been arrested and that the authorities had been looking for him. As these statements were not corroborated by any evidence, the Swiss authorities considered them implausible. 4.10 With reference to the findings of the domestic authorities, the State party further submits that if the first complainant had left Tunisia as described in his first application for asylum, it is implausible that he would have run the risk of passing, on two occasions, through customs in Tunis international airport with a passport bearing his name and of travelling by local airlines. It is also implausible that the complainants would have seen each other four to five times before leaving the country, in particular after the alleged searches. Similarly, it is implausible that the second complainant would have stayed at home until the very moment of departure. 4.11 The State party submits that during the first asylum proceedings, the first complainant declared he had applied for a visa to a Swiss representation in Tunisia after the search of 18 September 2000. However, it follows from his visa application that he had planned to visit Switzerland for professional reasons since August 2000. In addition, some professional references are dated 18 September 2000, when the search took place. Therefore, the domestic authorities concluded that the complainant had been at his workplace on the dates when he would have been apprehended. Furthermore, if the complainant had indeed feared being arrested by the police, he could have filed his application for asylum directly with the Swiss representation, which he had visited twice. The State party underlines that the complainant applied for asylum a week after his arrival in Switzerland. 4.12 The State party notes that the domestic authorities considered that the summons to the Ministry of the Interior provided during the first asylum proceedings, independently of the question of the authenticity of the document, did not testify to the fact that the first complainant had been summoned for the reasons alleged. Furthermore, he had not explained how he had obtained the summons, which had been issued a day prior to the interview at the Ministry. Hence, the domestic authorities found that the document was not pertinent. 4.13 The State party further submits that the complainants’ accounts made during the first and the second asylum proceedings with regard to the political activities which had prompted their first departure from Tunisia diverged on essential points. As a consequence, the domestic authorities doubted the veracity of the grounds invoked by the complaints in support of their second application for asylum. For instance, during the first asylum proceedings, the first complainant asserted that he had founded, with two friends, a group to support the families of political prisoners; and that the group acted on its own and had no name. During the second asylum proceedings, the second complainant asserted that he had been a member of Ennahda for over two years before his first departure from Tunisia. Similarly, during the first asylum proceedings, the complainants claimed two visits by the police, one to their house and the other to the second complainant’s shop. During the second asylum proceedings, the second author claimed that before their departure in October 2000, the authorities had paid a number of visits to their house and inquired about the first complainant. 8