CAT/C/30/D/192/2001 page 7 arrested or imprisoned on other occasions, the complainant said that he had not.4 The complainant’s wife, when questioned, also never mentioned any imprisonment of her husband in June 1998. Rather, she stated that her husband’s most recent arrest had been on 5 November 1996;5 (b) Secondly, the sentence of three years referred to in the judgement exceeds the penalty under Syrian law for the offence for which the complainant was allegedly sentenced; (c) Further, the judgement contradicts the security service internal memorandum dated 28 August 1998 produced by the complainant. It is scarcely credible that, despite being suspected of having founded a secret organization, the complainant was detained for only two weeks and released on 16 June 1998, only to be sought by the security service for the same offence two months later. Given the seriousness of the offence of founding a secret organization, the release referred to in the judgement appears more than doubtful. It is, moreover, surprising that the complainant was sentenced in absentia only on 20 May 1999, that is approximately one year after the Syrian authorities became aware of his subversive activities; (d) Lastly, the complainant claims that an official at the court which sentenced him was bribed to make a copy of the judgement. The copy produced by the complainant is, however, of such poor quality that it could hardly be a copy of an original judgement, but at most a copy of a document already copied several times previously. 4.9 In view of these contradictions and inconsistencies, the State party asserts that the copy of the judgement is clearly bogus. 4.10 Regarding the complainant’s political activities outside Syria (para. 2.4), the State party considers that, contrary to the assertion by the complainants, the photograph of the complainants at a demonstration for Kurdish rights in front of the Permanent Mission of Syria in Geneva proved neither that they took part in the demonstration nor that they engaged in any political activity in Switzerland. The photograph merely shows that the complainants were present in a location at which a political demonstration took place, leaving open the question of what demonstration it was. In particular, it does not show what role the complainants played in the demonstration; their position some way from individuals holding a sign, and the fact that they were surrounded by young children, suggest, rather, that the complainants were simply spectators at the demonstration. In any event, in the view of the State party, it could not be concluded from the photograph that the complainants were politically active in Switzerland, and that as a result they risked punishment if returned to Syria. 4.11 Regarding the Amnesty International report of 3 July 2001 (see paragraph 2.8), the State party observes that at the beginning of the report that organization made it clear that the report made no judgement as to the risks run by the complainants owing to their activities prior to their flight, since it was not in a position to undertake the necessary investigations. According to Amnesty International, the risk of undergoing ill-treatment in the event of return to Syria was supposedly based on the complainant’s links with the Yekiti party6 and his activities in Syria.7 In the view of the State party these conclusions are questionable since, as previously stated, the close links with the Yekiti party and the danger supposedly incurred by the complainants owing to political activity abroad8 have not been established in any way. Regarding measures to which persons returning to Syria after a stay abroad might be subjected, namely interrogations by