CAT/C/28/D/185/2001 page 7 expressed concern over the wide gap that exists between law and practice with regard to the protection of human rights in the country, and in particular over the reported widespread practice of torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment perpetrated by police and security forces. 5.4 In respect of Mr. Karoui’s allegation that he is personally at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Tunisia, the State party draws attention to the fact that several provisions in the Aliens Act reflect the same principle as laid down in the Convention article 3. Thus the Swedish Immigration authorities applies the same kind of test when considering the application for asylum under the Aliens Act as the Committee applies when examining a complaint under the Convention. 5.5 The State party stresses that it is primarily up to the complainant to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account, cf. S.L. v. Sweden.3 While reiterating the Swedish Immigration authorities’ reasoning, it is the State party’s opinion that Mr. Karoui has not been able to substantiate his claim that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Tunisia. The reasons for rejection of his application for asylum cast doubt over his credibility, as do the fact that when spending some time preparing for the journey to Sweden, he did not provide any explanation why he did not bring with him from Tunisia at least some documentation that he intended to invoke before the Swedish Immigration authorities. Furthermore, since he stated that his Tunisian passport was confiscated in 1986, but he was able to obtain a new passport before going to Algeria in 1991, he may as well have used a legal passport when travelling to Sweden. However, by destroying his passport, he has prevented the Swedish authorities from examining documentation vital to the assessment of his right to protection. 5.6 Upon entering Sweden, Mr. Karoui was carrying a visa issued by the Swedish Embassy in Tunisia, which he obtained on wrongful grounds, by stating that since 1 March 1996 he had a permanent senior position at the construction company where he was employed. He submitted a certificate allegedly signed by his employer on 30 June 1999, stating that he was still employed with the company. This information should, according to the State party, be compared with his information to the Immigration Board that he had not worked at all since he had spent seven years in prison, and later that he had a job as an assistant for a private company since 1997. 5.7 The State party also explains that Mr. Karoui stated during the proceedings that he left Tunisia because some people he knew and who also supported Al-Nahdha, had been arrested in June/July 1999, and he feared being arrested himself. His application for a visa to Sweden was granted on 2 July 1999, yet he did not leave until 7 August 1999. No explanation has been provided for this delay, and although he was still under duty to report every week to the police, he was not arrested during this period. 5.8 With regard to the certificate of conviction in absentia of 18 February 2000, the State party notes that the sentence is considerably longer than the alleged previous sentences the complainant allegedly received, yet he does not appear to have appealed against it or provided any explanation for not doing so. It is also noted that the certificate of the conviction contains no information about the date of the alleged crimes, of the fact that Mr. Karoui was convicted