4.1In its observations of 30 October 2002, the State party asserts that the same matter should be considered as having been submitted to another procedure of international settlement, since the complainant submitted his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. It adds that the complainant decided to withdraw his case because no interim measures were adopted, even though the complaint had not yet been formally registered. 4.2The State party acknowledges that all domestic remedies have been exhausted; it nevertheless maintains that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on the basis of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, since the complaint is not sufficiently substantiated. 4.3Should the Committee declare the complaint to be admissible, the State party asserts that, as regards the merits of the complaint, returning the complainant to Colombia would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. It points out that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, application of article 3 of the Convention must take account of (a) the general human rights situation in the country, and (b) the danger personally faced by the complainant of being subjected to torture in the country to which he is returned. 4.4The State party points out that it is aware of the general human rights situation in Colombia, and considers that it is unnecessary to expand on it; the State party therefore restricts itself to considering the complainant’s personal risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Colombia. It affirms that the circumstances invoked by the complainant are not sufficient evidence that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in Colombia, and refers in this connection to the Committee’s jurisprudence on the interpretation of article 3 of the Convention.e 4.5The State party adds that the complainant’s credibility is of vital importance in taking a decision on the application for asylum, and that the national authorities conducting the interviews are naturally in an excellent position to assess that credibility. The State party contends that the common feature of the complainant’s declarations to the Migration Board and to the Aliens Appeals Board lies in the doubts they raised as to his credibility. It stresses that the complainant applied for asylum several days after the Sollotuna District Court had handed down a judgement against him ordering his expulsion from Swedish territory for having committed a drugtrafficking offence. It adds that the complainant moreover did not give his true identity, which was revealed later in the judicial investigations; and that the result of all of this was that the migration authorities attached no credibility to the complainant’s assertions that he risked being tortured if he were deported to Colombia. 4.6In the State party’s view, it is not logical for someone applying for protection to put his relations with the new country at risk by committing an offence; moreover, the offence was committed within three months of his arrival in Sweden. The State party adds that the complainant was found guilty by the judicial authorities, that according to the police investigations he purchased the cocaine in Colombia before leaving the country, and that his brother-in-law carried the drug to Sweden. In the view of the State party, the foregoing does not reflect the behaviour of a genuine asylum-seeker. 4.7The State party contends that the complainant has provided no evidence of his alleged political activities in Colombia. According to the information furnished to it, the complainant was prosecuted for theft in Colombia, while at no time did he give details to the Swedish migration authorities concerning the alleged acts of torture to which he was subjected, nor the times and places of his arrests. The State party asserts that the medical reports were the only evidence he submitted, but that they only mentioned the possibility that the complainant had been the victim of torture. 4.8In another written submission dated 8 July 2003, the State party informs the Committee that it had received reports from the Colombian authorities informing it that on his return the complainant was briefly detained for the offence of “escaping from prison”, and that he was also cited as a suspect in the commission of several other offences of a non political nature. Comments by the complainant concerning the State party’s arguments 5.1In a written submission of 17 April 2003, the complainant’s counsel commented on the State party’s observations. He asserts that he was unable to obtain pertinent evidence of the complainant’s political activities or of the acts of torture to which he was subjected in Colombia.f 5.2The complainant asserts that his wife, Mrs. Karin Berg, visited him after he had been deported and imprisoned in Colombia. He also submits a copy of a written statement to a Colombian judicial authority by Hector Mosquera, who declared in 1994 that he had been subjected to torture. His counsel asserts that this is the same person as the complainant.g 5.3The complainant says that he was deprived of his freedom on arrival at Bogota Airport, and that on 30 July 1999, while he was in Sweden, he was sentenced by the Third Criminal Circuit Court of Cartago to eight months’ imprisonment for the offence of “escaping from prison”, this being evidence that he was persecuted. He adds that he had travelled under another identity because he was afraid of being arrested by the Colombian authorities, and that he did not commit the offence for which he was tried and sentenced in Sweden. 5.4The complainant says that in accordance with Swedish legislation, if an international organization makes a request for interim measures, the execution of the measure of expulsion must be halted. He adds that his counsel alerted the State party’s authorities to the interim measures he had requested from the Committee, and that the expulsion procedure is only concluded when the alien is accepted by the authorities of the country to which he is sent; consequently, the expulsion could have been suspended when he stopped over in Madrid. 5.5The complainant contends that when he was deported he was exposed to a real and personal risk of torture in Colombia, and the fact that this did not take place is due to the circumstances of the case, such as the considerable assistance he received and the measures taken internationally to draw the State party’s attention to the case;h as a result he was released within a relatively brief period, but the risk still exists and the possibility that he may still be prosecuted should not be ruled out. He maintains that he currently