CAT/C/51/D/438/2010 their business activities in the past, they could certainly have built a social network in Tunisia which could be revived upon their return. 4.18 The State party submits that, in light of the foregoing, there are no substantial grounds to fear that the complainants would be concretely and personally exposed to torture if returned to Tunisia. Their allegations and evidence provided do not lead to the consideration that their return would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. The State party, therefore, invites the Committee to find that the return of the complainants to Tunisia would not constitute a violation of the international obligations of Switzerland under article 3 of the Convention. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 11 June 2012, the complainants commented on the State party’s observations. They disagree with the State party’s arguments that, since the changes of January 2011, Tunisia has pursued a democratic transition and that there has recently been no civil war or generalized violence. They argue that despite the overthrow of President Ben Ali and the political changes in Tunisia, the human rights situation in the country remains unstable and its political future is very uncertain. Protests and strikes break out regularly. Opposition groups involved in toppling Ben Ali suspect that some members of the interim Government sympathize with the ousted administration and that the revolution was only possible due to support from the former regime, especially the security forces. The complainants further argue that many of the judges appointed by Ben Ali retained their positions after the overthrow and that the current Government use disproportionate and excessive force to quell the protests. They submit that uncertainty as to whether supporters of Ben Ali will regain power exposes them to a real risk of being tortured upon return. They add that the political changes do not mean that Tunisia is a safe country for former opponents of the regime. 5.2 The complainants further challenge the State party’s argument that the summonses provided were not authentic and that interviewing returning long-term residents from abroad is commonplace. They submit that the original documents were kept by the authorities after the interviews. The State party’s assertion that such a practice is unusual is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the State party has failed to demonstrate that these documents are fake and this does not appear from the face of the documents. The complainants submit that they have discharged the burden of presenting an “arguable case”, sufficient to require a response based on concrete evidence from the State party, rather than general assumptions or bare assertions.7 They further argue that the State party has provided no evidence that interviewing returnees is commonplace, despite the summonses issued to the complainants after such interviews, which showed that the Tunisian authorities were highly interested in the complainants and intended to punish them. The State party has thus failed to make sufficient efforts to assess the risk for the complainants of being subjected to torture in case of forcible return. Furthermore, given that they fled the country after a warning not to do so and that they were interrogated thoroughly and at length after their repatriation in 2006, such a risk is real. The fall of the former President does not guarantee their safety as they have outstanding summonses in their name and the current Government reportedly resorts to excessive force. 5.3 With regard to the State party’s argument concerning the lack of credibility of the complainants’ accounts due to inconsistencies in their statements, the first complainant reiterates that he did not inform his spouse of having been taken to the police station in her absence for “cultural reasons” and because he wanted to ease her suffering. The 7 10 See para. 5 of general comment No. 1.