CAT/C/50/D/467/2011 upon their arrival to Switzerland was interpreted by the Federal Office for Migration as an attempt to conceal the real date and circumstances of their departure from Yemen. In addition, the first complainant failed to provide the Federal Office for Migration with an attestation from the non-governmental organization that had visited him in the al-Mansoura prison, despite his initial claim that he could undoubtedly obtain such an attestation. 2.8 On 7 June 2010, the complainants appealed the decision of the Federal Office for Migration to the Federal Administrative Court, which upheld their expulsion order on 4 January 2011. Referring to the description of the first complainant’s arrest and detention after 21 May 2009, the Federal Administrative Court stated that he had not provided enough details. In particular, he had not been able to provide the name of the nongovernmental organization that had allegedly visited al-Mansoura prison while he had been detained there, and he had contacted this organization with the request to provide an attestation only after the first negative asylum decision by the Federal Office for Migration. The attestation that was issued by al-Mauna on 11 May 2010 and provided by the first complainant to the Federal Administrative Court did not fully correspond to his statements, since he had never claimed before the asylum authorities to have been a human rights activist before his arrest. Moreover, two diverging, non-official translations of this attestation from the Arabic original were submitted. Furthermore, the first complainant had not been able to mention any other public demonstrations having taken place after his release. The Federal Administrative Court stated that the first complainant’s efforts to obtain travel visas and organize the departure of his family from Yemen were incompatible with his alleged surveillance. He had left Yemen with his own passport and legally obtained visa, which would not have been possible had he had actually been wanted by the Political Security Organization or been under surveillance. The Federal Administrative Court also questioned authenticity of the summons issued by the Ministry of Interior, al-Brika Directorate, which the first complainant submitted together with his asylum application. Moreover, no war, civil war or situation of generalized violence prevailed in Yemen that would put at risk any person originating from this country irrespective of his or her individual circumstances. Finally, the Federal Administrative Court concluded that the first complainant had not engaged in any concrete political activity since his arrival in Switzerland. 2.9 On 28 January 2011, the complainants asked for a revision of the judgement rendered by the Federal Administrative Court and provided new evidence in support of their claims, namely, an attestation issued on 22 January 2011 by the Secretary of Information of the Southern Democratic Assembly based in the United Kingdom, and another attestation issued on 23 January 2011 by the office of the former President of the Democratic Republic of Yemen, Ali Salim al-Beidh. On 15 February 2011, the complainants submitted a scanned copy of the attestation issued on 19 January 2011 by the al-Mansoura prison authorities and confirming the detention of the first complainant from 21 May 2009 to 30 June 2009. In addition, the complainants provided a number of documents concerning activities of the first complainant in Switzerland, such as articles from the Internet and photographs of demonstrations that were attended by him throughout the year 2010 and in March 2011. 2.10 On 27 May 2011, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the complainants’ request for revision. With respect to the new evidence submitted by the first complainant (see paragraph 2.9 above), the Federal Administrative Court held that, even on the assumption that these documents were authentic and not written by complaisance, it was insufficient to prove his alleged persecution. In particular, the attestation issued by alMansoura prison authorities did not specify the reasons for detaining the first complainant but just referred to “criminal proceedings”. The fact that the first day of his detention coincided with the demonstration organized by the Southern Movement in Aden was 4