CAT/C/63/D/719/2015 6.7 The State party submits that the complaint fails to clarify on what grounds the complainants now believe that their return, in view of the current political situation in Armenia, would involve a personal and present risk of treatment incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. They do not claim that they are still being sought by Mr. Abrahamyan or his men, or that they are otherwise the object of adverse attention from the authorities. Nor do they explain what kind of treatment they claim to fear on their return or by whom. The State party notes that the complainants have not substantiated their travel route by providing the documents they used to cross the border or any other evidence, and that they were unable to provide detailed, coherent and verifiable statements about the route they took. Since they state that they travelled from Georgia to Ukraine by air, it is not unreasonable to assume that this journey can be substantiated by documentary evidence. The State party rejects the complainants’ explanation that an intermediary who arranged for them to travel was in possession of both the passports and tickets used for their journey, and finds it implausible that two adults would not have been required to show their passports at the border control post at the airport. The complainants were unable to say from which city their flight departed, which airline was used and at what time the aircraft left Georgia. The State party submits that these facts undermine the credibility of the complainants. Although account has been taken of the fact that H.A. was heavily pregnant at the time of the flight, this does not mean that G.H. would be unable to provide such basic information. 6.8 The State party notes that the fact that no credibility can be attached to the complainants’ alleged travel route is confirmed by the information regarding the visa applications for Italy they submitted using their passports. The State party is convinced that the complainants have made incorrect statements and have withheld information. During their second interview, H.A. said that she had been forced to hand over her passport on 29 February 2008, and G.H. stated that he had handed his passport over on 28 September 2010. However, it has been established that the complainants submitted visa applications for Italy in Yerevan on 27 September 2010, and that, at that moment, they were in possession of their passports. The State party cannot accept the complainants’ explanation that this was not possible because, at that time, they were in Georgia, and that they must have been victims of identity theft. Since the complainants handed over their passports two and a half years apart from each other, and to different people, it would be remarkable if, by sheer coincidence, the two passports were used simultaneously to apply for European visas. In this context, the State party takes into account the fact that the visas were applied for and granted a very short time (one month) before the complainants reported to Ter Apel asylum centre in the Netherlands. 6.9 The State party notes that the complainants’ accounts of their reasons for fleeing Armenia were deemed to be partially credible. The description of the events that occurred on the night of 29 February to 1 March 2008, the fact that H.A. was compelled to provide medical assistance during the demonstrations, and that she refused to inject people with a fluid unknown to her were all deemed credible. However, the description of subsequent events about how H.A. was taken away on 25 to 35 occasions against her will, detained and ill-treated to compel her to memorize testimony against Mr. Pashinyan, including for a week in March 2009, were deemed not to be credible. The State party further notes that G.H. had no problems with the authorities until the raid on 28 September 2010. It finds G.H.’s claim that he was dismissed from his job for telling his manager about H.A.’s situation and his claim that his parents’ home was raided by men who identified themselves as Mr. Abrahamyan’s men to be lacking in credibility. The State party finds it implausible that the Armenian authorities or Mr. Abrahamyan still needed H.A.’s testimony, since Mr. Pashinyan had already been convicted in January 2010 (nine months prior to the alleged raid). In the light of the above, the State party concludes that the reasons given by the complainants for leaving Armenia cannot be deemed to be credible. This conclusion is strengthened by the above-mentioned information regarding the visa applications for Italy submitted by the complainants in September 2010 in Yerevan. 6.10 With regard to the report of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights and Medical of 15 April 2014, the State party submits that it does not render the complainants’ account fully credible, nor does it justify any further investigation. The State party points to the fact that what H.A. said to the Institute’s doctor concerning her alleged torture does not correspond to the statements that she and G.H. made in the various interviews in their first 7