CAT/C/50/D/467/2011 reached by the State party’s asylum authorities on the basis of the first complainant’s own statements. 4.7 As to the attestation issued on 19 January 2011 by al-Mansoura prison authorities (see paragraph 2.9 above), the State party submits that, independently of the question of the authenticity of this document, it demonstrates that the first complainant has indeed been detained but does not necessarily support the alleged reasons for his detention put forward by the first complainant. According to the translation provided, he was detained because of criminal proceedings. The State party argues that this attestation is not decisive. The fact that, according to the attestation, the first day of the detention coincided with a time when, according to various sources, a demonstration took place at Aden is insufficient to prove the veracity of the first complainant’s assertions about the reasons for his alleged detention. 4.8 The State party concludes that the evidence submitted by the first complainant is not decisive, because it does not have sufficient probative value to outweigh the elements of improbability identified in the context of the domestic proceedings. For the same reasons, the first complainant is unable to demonstrate that he would be personally at concrete and serious risk of being subject to acts prohibited under the Convention if returned to his country of origin. 4.9 The State party further argues, with reference to the Committee’s General Comment No. 1 (para. 8 (e)), that another element to be taken into account when assessing the first complainant’s risk of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin is whether he has engaged in political activities in Yemen. The State party notes in this regard that during his asylum interviews the first complainant stated that he had been a member of the Yemeni Socialist Party before the unification of Yemen in 1990. The first complainant clearly stated that he became a member in order to benefit from certain privileges that a membership in the Yemeni Socialist Party entailed. In addition, the situation before the unification was not, according to the first complainant, the source of his asylum application. As to the situation after unification, the first complainant admitted that he was neither a member of any political party nor politically active. The State party adds that his only political activity seems to have been his participation in the demonstration on 21 May 2009, which is confirmed by the fact that he could not mention any other demonstrations that took place between his release and his departure from the country. 4.10 The State party adds that during the proceedings before the Federal Office for Migration, the first complainant has provided an attestation issued on 19 April 2010 by the Southern Democratic Assembly in the United Kingdom. The author of this attestation, A.N., states that the first complainant is a national of South Yemen who is involved in the activities of the Southern Movement and who was subjected to persecution, detention and torture. A.N. also describes the political situation in Yemen over the past two years. The State party’s authorities have considered this attestation as a “complaisance” document without any probative value, given that it contained only general information and did not correspond to the first complainant’s own statements as to his involvement in the activities of the Southern Movement. 4.11 According to the attestation issued on 22 January 2011 and provided by the first complainant to the Federal Administrative Court, A.N. states that his own sources in Yemen have confirmed that the first complainant was actively involved in the Southern Movement and that he was arrested and detained from 21 May 2009 to 30 June 2009 due to his participation in a demonstration in Aden. In view of the arguments advanced by the State party’s asylum authorities with regard to the attestation issued by the Southern Democratic Assembly on 19 April 2010, which led them to conclude that the facts alleged by the first complainant were implausible, the State party submits that the new attestation should also be considered as written by complaisance, because it reiterates the earlier allegation that the first complainant was involved in the activities of the Southern 8