CAT/C/46/D/369/2008 from Nkayi. The Committee notes that the State party has pointed to some contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant’s allegations about his political activity in UPADS and that, according to independent sources, members of UPADS, one of the largest opposition parties in the Congo, are not subject to reprisals. The Committee notes that the complainant’s claims about his activities in CERDEC are very vague, and that the statement of his alleged brother and president of CERDEC Russia-CIS does not establish a family relationship. The State party has argued that the complainant was recognized as a refugee in Côte d’Ivoire because of the general situation in the Congo. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant alleged to have been threatened by non-State agents in Côte d’Ivoire and, furthermore, had not credibly shown that he had been involved in activities for CERDEC or JE-PEU. In addition, according to the State party, the alleged activities do not give justifiable grounds for fearing persecution. Lastly, the Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the complainant has not substantiated his political activities in Switzerland and that nothing indicates that such activities have been brought to the attention of the Congolese authorities. 10.8 The Committee notes the author’s argument that, despite the peace agreements and the amnesty, there were mass human rights violations and the real UPADS, which promoted the values of democracy and justice, was still in danger. Furthermore, it notes that according to the complainant, his political activities in the Congo and in Switzerland and his relationship to G.D.B., the president of CERDEC Russia-CIS, are known to the Congolese authorities. Lastly, it notes the complainant’s assertion that his activities in JEPEU would place him in danger were he to return to Côte d’Ivoire. 10.9 Having taken into account the arguments submitted by the parties, the Committee finds that the complainant has not provided evidence of a real, present and foreseeable risk. The Committee points out that the complainant contends that his political activities in the Congo, in Côte d’Ivoire and in Switzerland, in addition to his relationship to the president of CERDEC Russia-CIS, would place him in danger of persecution, without however providing substantial evidence of his active role in a political party or his political activities that would justify his fear of persecution. 10.10 With regard to his fear of persecution in the event of his return to the Republic of the Congo, the Committee observes that the complainant submitted an attestation that he was an active member of UPADS that did not mention his role as president of the UPADS youth movement. It also notes that according to independent sources, UPADS members are not subject to reprisals in the Congo. The Committee observes that apart from a newspaper article concerning the arrest of the former Minister of Finance and member of CERDEC, the complainant has not sufficiently substantiated his allegation that the Congolese authorities persecuted and tortured all CERDEC members. Moreover, even if the complainant was in fact an active member of UPADS and of CERDEC, he has not clearly established that his activities are sufficiently important to arouse the interest of the authorities if he were returned to the Congo. Furthermore, and regardless of the credibility of his relationship to the president of CERDEC Russia-CIS, the Committee observes that the only evidence in the file comes from his alleged brother, who states that the complainant would face persecution if he were to return to the Congo. Although the complainant asserts that other members of his family have had problems because of their relationship to G.D.B., the Committee has no information about or evidence of these problems and no objective indication that the complainant’s possible relationship to G.D.B. would place him at risk of torture. 10.11 As the State party does not specify the country to which the complainant would be returned, the Committee must also determine whether the complainant risks being subjected to torture if he is returned to the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. By way of substantiating his personal risk, the complainant asserts that as the founder of JE-PEU, he left Côte d’Ivoire GE.11-43871 9