CAT/C/50/D/467/2011 Movement. The first complainant has stated, however, that he had not actively participated in the movements against the oppression of the South before his alleged arrest on 21 May 2009. 4.12 The State party also notes the second complainant’s own assertion that she had left Yemen for the sole purpose of following and accompanying her husband. As for herself, she has not experienced any problems with the Yemeni authorities, but was frightened when officers visited their home searching for her husband. In addition, she has never been politically active. 4.13 As to the first complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, the State party notes that he claims in his complaint to the Committee to have actively supported the cause of the South Yemeni community since his arrival in Switzerland. He claims to be a member of the Southern Democratic Assembly and to be responsible for the organization’s public relations in the canton of Fribourg. As part of his political activities, he participated in several meetings of this organization as well as demonstrations organized by it. In this regard, the first complainant provided an attestation of affiliation issued on 22 January 2011 by the Southern Democratic Assembly in the United Kingdom, and an attestation issued on 23 January 2011 by the office of the former President of the Democratic Republic of Yemen, as well as photographs and articles about demonstrations attended by him. 4.14 The State party’s asylum authorities have found that the evidence submitted by the first complainant was insufficient to render credible his alleged future risk of being subjected to ill-treatment. It adds that both attestations issued by the Southern Democratic Assembly in the United Kingdom should be considered as written by complaisance. Although the second attestation mentions that the first complainant is indeed active in this organization, it fails to specify either his activities or his role. It states simply that the return of the first complainant to Yemen constitutes a high risk, without providing any substantiation in support of this statement. 4.15 According to the evidence submitted, the activities of the first complainant are mainly limited to his participation in five demonstrations organized by the Southern Democratic Assembly or other exiles originating from South Yemen. With reference to the judgement of the Federal Administrative Court of 27 May 2011, the State party submits that there is concrete evidence that the activities of the Southern Democratic Assembly have been closely observed by the Yemeni authorities in the past and that some particularly active persons or members of the governing structures of the organization could have been exposed to harm if returned to their country of origin. However, the first complainant has not established that he played in this organization a role likely to attract the attention of the authorities. He appears to be a mere participant of demonstrations organized by the Swiss branch of the Southern Democratic Assembly. However, such demonstrations being numerous not only in Switzerland but also in other countries, it is virtually impossible for the Yemeni authorities to focus not only on persons deemed to be opinion leaders, but also on each of the demonstrators appearing in such a context. The State party’s asylum authorities established that his political activities in Switzerland were not of such significance that he could be identified by the Yemeni authorities as a well-known opponent of the existing regime. Even the first complainant’s position as head of public relations of the Southern Democratic Assembly in the canton of Fribourg is not of such significance that it would make him particularly vulnerable. 4.16 Furthermore, the State party adds that the photographs of demonstrations that are accessible on the Internet do not allow the conclusion that the Yemeni authorities have taken note of the first complainant’s activities in Switzerland. The sole fact that he is identifiable on the photographs is not enough to demonstrate a risk of ill-treatment in case of return. It is also difficult, for obvious practical reasons, to identify individual participants 9