CAT/C/64/D/738/2016 reasons, the State party considers the newspaper articles in the case file to be devoid of evidential value. 4.13 As regards the transcriptions and copies of emails and text messages containing threats against the complainant, which were submitted in full to the domestic authorities and in part to the Committee, the State party notes that the domestic authorities concluded that it was impossible to verify whether those messages were genuine and who had written them. They should therefore be considered devoid of evidential value. Moreover, those threats stopped in the middle of 2011, even though the complainant claims to have remained involved in APARECO. They are not sufficient to prove that the complainant would run a risk of persecution if he were to return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As regards the various letters from APARECO in the case file, these were clearly provided as an accommodation and cannot be considered proof that he would be at risk of ill-treatment if he were to return to his country. 4.14 The State party notes that the complainant has declared to the Committee that the domestic authorities should have conducted further investigations, including through the Embassy of Switzerland in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In this regard, the State party recalls that the authorities sought information from the Embassy following the complainant’s first asylum application. According to the Embassy report of 21 January 2009, the documents submitted with that application lacked evidential value or had been falsified, and the complainant was not wanted by the Congolese authorities. Given those facts and the overall circumstances of the present case, there was no need for the domestic authorities to seek further information from the Embassy. 4.15 In view of the above, the State party considers that the complainant has not been able to prove that, owing to his political activity in exile, he would be at risk of being subjected to treatment that is contrary to article 3 of the Convention if he were returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 14 May 2017, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He asserts that the State party’s submission is based solely on the arguments of the Federal Administrative Court, especially its judgment of 27 August 2013, which put an end to the second asylum procedure initiated by the complainant. In his view, that judgment should not, in any way, bind the Committee in its consideration of his complaint as far as his fear of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention is concerned. 5.2 He notes that the State party also makes reference to his first asylum application, even though the present complaint does not focus on the facts relating to that procedure and the resulting decision has already entered into force. The complainant’s first complaint, which was submitted to the Committee in 2009 and subsequently struck off the list, was based on facts that occurred before he fled the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not the facts invoked in the present complaint. The complainant’s political activity in Switzerland began in 2010. This means that the facts set forth in the present complaint and the evidence supplied by the complainant date from after 2010. This complaint concerns the risk of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment following the definitive rejection of the complainant’s second asylum application. In his second asylum application, the complainant did not invoke facts relating to his first asylum application. He asserts that the State party’s argument regarding his first complaint to the Committee is therefore not justified. 5.3 The complainant alleges that his political behaviour in Switzerland makes him an enemy of the Government. Since 2010, he has been an active member of APARECO, an organization that cannot officially operate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo because its members are at risk of severe persecution. This movement can operate only in foreign countries such as Switzerland, where the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association are guaranteed. The complainant has been the secretary of the committee for the largest city in Switzerland for several years. His appointment was announced on the website of APARECO. He must therefore have come to the attention of the Congolese authorities, for the APARECO website is monitored particularly closely by 6 GE.18-16592