CAT/C/50/D/467/2011 in a large demonstration if they are not previously known to the Yemeni authorities, which does not appear to be the case in the present complaint. 4.17 The State party also points to a number of factual inconsistences in the first complainant’s account, and therefore questions his credibility. It notes, in particular, that he left Yemen lawfully by plane from the international airport in the capital, which would not have been possible had he actually been wanted by the Political Security Organization or been under surveillance. Moreover, in light of his training and profession, the first complainant would not have recklessly taken the risk of being questioned during the passenger checks on the internal and international flights and would have instead left Yemen by ground transport. 4.18 The State party also submits that the first complainant could provide only limited information about the circumstances of his arrest on 21 May 2009, his detention for 40 days at al-Mansoura prison and the questioning to which he was subjected, as well as about two subsequent 24-hour detentions. Furthermore, the summons issued by the Ministry of Interior, al-Brika Directorate, did not specify the reasons for summoning the first complainant. Even assuming that this document is authentic, it is insufficient to establish an eventual risk of persecution, since the first complainant could have been summoned for any other reason and then released after a short detention. 4.19 The State party also recalls that the first complainant provided little information about the visit of a member of the organization whose pressure led to his release and that he had not been able to name this organization during the asylum interviews. Moreover, the first complainant had contacted this organization with the request to provide an attestation only after the first negative asylum decision by the Federal Office for Migration, although the Office had given him a time limit for submitting this document. Furthermore, two diverging, non-official translations of this attestation from the Arabic original had been submitted, with the second translation “correcting” the first translation on the basis of the observations made by the Federal Office for Migration. The State party’s asylum authorities noted that this attestation did not mention either the name of the first complainant or the manner in which the information had been obtained. In addition, its contents did not fully correspond to the first complainant’s statements, since he had never claimed to be a human rights activist or a member of any political organization. 4.20 The State party argues that, in these circumstances, the asylum authorities cannot be reproached for having determined that the first complainant’s claims were implausible and that his allegations on the key points were contrary to logic and general experience and, therefore, lacked credibility. 4.21 The State party submits that, in light of the foregoing, there are no substantial grounds for fearing that the first complainant would be concretely and personally exposed to torture if returned to Yemen. His allegations and the evidence he provided do not allow the conclusion that his return would expose him to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. The State party, therefore, invites the Committee to find that the return of the first complainant and his family to Yemen would not constitute a violation of the international obligations of Switzerland under article 3 of the Convention. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 2 April 2012, the complainants commented on the State party’s observations. As to the State party’s arguments that there is no situation of generalized violence and that there is no practice of systematic human rights violations in Yemen, the complainants recall their initial submission of 24 June 2011, which referred to various sources that suggested 10