CAT/C/54/D/476/2011 up by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights but containing no indication as to the capacity in which it was acting, the Commission indicates that it has checked with the Gambian Armed Forces and is able to confirm that the complainant was a member of the army and that he was involved in the attempted coup of March 2006. The Commission adds that if the complainant were to return to the Gambia, he would be subjected to torture and sentenced either to death or to life imprisonment for treason. On 27 July 2011, the complainant requested a review of the Court’s decision on the basis of this information. 2.9 On 28 July 2011, the Federal Administrative Court issued a stay of the deportation order as a precautionary measure during the review process. 2.10 On 5 August 2011, the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the document from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights did not constitute substantive evidence since it was a fax containing no indication of the sender and could easily have been falsified. Furthermore, the document had been submitted after the asylum proceedings without any satisfactory explanation as to why it had been submitted so late. The Court therefore annulled the stay of the deportation order that had been issued on 28 July 2011. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his forced return to the Gambia would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention because he fears that he would be tortured by the Gambian authorities on account of his involuntary involvement in the attempted coup of 21 March 2006 and his subsequent desertion. 3.2 The complainant also asserts that if he were returned to the Gambia, he would be tried for treason because of his involvement in the attempted coup on 21 March 2006 and/or his desertion and that he would then be sentenced either to death or life imprisonment without parole. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 6 March 2011, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. 4.2 The State party recalls that, in order for the non -refoulement principle guaranteed under article 3 of the Convention to be applicable, the complainant must prove, in accordance with the Committee’s guidelines, that he would be in personal, present and substantial danger of being subjected to torture if deported to his country of origin. It also recalls the considerations that must be taken into account in assessing whether such a danger exists — specifically, the existence in the country of origin of a consistent pattern of human rights violations, claims of torture or ill -treatment suffered in the past, political activities of the complainant, and whether there is evidence as to the complainant’s credibility or inconsistencies in his claims. 8 4.3 The State party notes that all these considerations were thoroughly analysed by the Federal Administrative Court during the asylum proceedings and that in the present communication the complainant provides no further evidence that might call the Swiss authorities’ decision into question. The only new consideration is the claim that, if he were deported, the complainant would be immediately arrested and sentenced to death or life imprisonment without parole. The State party recalls in this regard that the protection afforded under article 3 of the Convention does not apply to persons in danger of being arrested and prosecuted and that the existence of such __________________ 8 GE.15-11116 The State party cites general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, in particular, para graphs 6 and 8 of the general comment. 5/8