CAT/C/54/D/468/2011 he had not been brought before a court when he had been held in preventive detention in June 2005, whereas at his second hearing he said that in June 2005 he had been required to appear before a military court. 6 4.2 The State party further considers the co mplainant’s allegations to be inconsistent. It points out that the complainant alleges that on several occasions he met a colleague who was regarded with suspicion because of past terrorist activities, whil e asserting that he behaved irreproachably out of fear of being under the surveillance of the military authorities after the end of his employment contract. 7 Furthermore, his statements regarding his failure to produce identity papers are not plausible. For instance, during the initial proceedings he stated that he had left his identity card in his house because he thought he would not need it if he went abroad, but at the second hearing he added that one of the reasons for not taking his identity documents was that the Tunisian authorities were cooperating with the Algerian authorities and that they would have returned him to Algeria if they had found identity papers on him. 8 In addition, the complainant was unable to explain convincingly how he was able to travel from Algeria to Switzerland without checks at border posts. The State party considers that the complainant’s allegations that traffickers knew which routes to take and were able to draw on a network of acquaintances are questionable. 9 4.3 Furthermore, the State party considers that the documents furnished by the complainant in evidence of the risk of ill-treatment are not convincing. The search warrant of 15 November 2005 — presented by the complainant at the same time as the request for reconsideration of 9 January 2009 — was submitted to the authorities late, without plausible explanation for the delay. Moreover, the information in the document did not correspond to the information provided by the complainant during the initial proceedings: in the course of the hearings the complainant stated that he had performed his military service from September 2000 to March 2002 and then signed a three-year employment contract with the military authorities in March 2002, i.e. until March 2005. However, according to the document of 15 November 2005, the complainant is wanted by the authorities for violating the terms of a contract concluded with the military authorities on 14 September 2000. Lastly, the State party considers that the authenticity of the arrest warrant is questionable, since the document, which is dated 15 November 2005, states that the complainant was declared a deserter on 11 December 2005. The State party further notes that it is easy to obtain or buy such documents illegally, and they should therefore be considered to be of limited evidentiary value. As for the letter from Mr. N, the Algerian lawyer, the State party considers that it contains mere unsubstantiated allegations and must therefore be deemed to be a letter of convenience. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 In his comments of 16 March 2012, the complainant challenges the State party ’s observations regarding his credibility and reiterates the facts concerning the alleged risk of torture. With regard to his not having been subjected to torture in Algeria, th e complainant points out that he was nonetheless detained for 25 days in 2005 and argues that, if he were to return now, he would be at risk of worse ill -treatment, since he would be charged with disobedience, unauthorized departure and high treason. __________________ 6 7 8 9 GE.15-11110 January 2007, p. 3. Reference is made to the transcript of the hearing of 22 December 2005, pp. 9 and 11; the transcript of the hearing of 1 December 2005, p. 6; and the decision of the Federal Office for Migration of 24 January 2007, p. 3. Reference is made to the decision of the Federal Office for Migration of 24 January 2007, p. 3. Reference is made to the transcript of the hearing of 22 December 2005, p. 12. Reference is made to the transcript of the hearing of 1 December 2005, p. 9. 5/8