CAT/C/60/D/639/2014 4.10 The Federal Administrative Tribunal has also determined that the author does not have a particular political profile under risk, in the sense of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in A.A. v. Switzerland. 26 The State party adds that the alleged reasons for asylum largely differ from those claimed by the complainant of the present communication, particularly as it concerns the extent and length of his activities and its exposure. 4.11 The State party submits that the national authorities determined that the author had failed to establish credibly his claims during the request for asylum procedures. The Federal Office for Migration and the Tribunal concluded that it was not credible that the author was originally from Kutum, North Darfur. 27 During the hearings of 17 December 2013, the complainant confirmed that he had never had identity papers under the name of N.A.A. He claimed to only have a “confirmation of residence” and a certificate of marriage under that name.28 According to the jurisprudence and the practice of Swiss authorities, the certificate of residence delivered by a local authority in Kutum does not fill the required conditions to be considered a valid identity paper. In addition, the certificate is only a copy and not the original document, it does not contain a security mechanism and it is notorious that this kind of document can be easily purchased. The translated (into English) marriage certificate neither constitutes evidence — because, as admitted by the complainant, there is no official procedure to establish this kind of certificate — nor demonstrates that he is originally from Darfur, where he allegedly married.29 4.12 The State party submits that the complainant’s statements related to his place of origin are contradictory, they do not reflect the reality and they are not concrete. For example, the complainant first indicated that he lived in the town of Kutum. Then, after been questioned by the authorities, he changed his statement and declared that he lived in a village around 45 minutes from that town. 30 The complainant has failed to provide convincing information on the characteristics of the town of Kutum or on the clashes between the Government of the Sudan and the rebel organizations around the town. In addition, the places mentioned by the complainant as being around the town of Kutum are not in reality situated near that town.31 4.13 The national authorities have concluded instead that the complainant may have come from another region of the Sudan and that he probably lived outside of Darfur for a certain amount of time before leaving the Sudan. The State party considers that the reasons for his asylum request — to escape the civil war in Darfur — are not founded.32 4.14 The national authorities also found that the complainant’s allegations regarding the violent death of his father were partly contradictory and inaccurate. During the first hearing, the complainant indicated that his father represented the Movement for Liberation of Darfur and that he incited young people to liberate Darfur. 33 During the second hearing, the complainant denied that his father had been involved in political activities. 34 The complainant was unaware of the precise date of the death of his father and the story of the alleged violent death was inaccurate. 35 He was not able to indicate who was the killer (“certainly people with links with Sudanese authorities”, “people in uniform”), the date when he was buried or the cause of the death. First, the complainant alleged that his father had been shot; second, that he had died in a bombing; and third, when asked to clarify the question, he answered that “he was killed by bullets and at the same time under the 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 6 The State party refers to the decision of the Federal Administrative Tribunal, 10 October 2014, para. 6.4. The State party refers to the transcript of the hearing dated 17 December 2013, p. 5. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 4. Ibid., pp. 5 and 7. Ibid., p. 5. Office for Migration decision, 7 January 2014, para.2; Federal Administrative Tribunal decision, 10 October 2014, para. 6.1. The State party refers to the transcript of the hearing dated 22 April 2010, p. 7. The State party refers to the transcript of the hearing dated 17 December 2013, p. 13. Ibid., pp. 10-12.