- 120 4.3 Concerning the assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant will be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Georgia, the State party refers to the Refugee Board’s decisions in their entirety. The State party emphasizes that according to background information available, only high-ranking or high-profile members of the Zwiadists are being persecuted and the complainant did not belong to this group. With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence in I.O.A. v. Swedena and N.P. v. Australiab, the State party argues that it is important whether information about the recipient country supports the complainant’s allegations that she risks being subjected to torture. Furthermore, the State party refers to X. v. Switzerlandc where the Committee emphasized that the applicant “does not belong to a political, professional or social group targeted by the authorities for repression and torture”. 4.4 The State party reiterates that the Refugee Board did not accept the complainant’s story that she had been liberated from detention through an armed attack, mainly because there were no references to such an action in their background material. Although the complainant claimed that her father had taken part in the attack, he did not mention the attack in his application for asylum. In this context, the State party refers to the Committee decision in H.D. v. Switzerlandd where the Committee takes into account whether the complainant’s presentation of the facts are considered well attested and credible. 4.5 Moreover, the Refugee Board found that even if the detention had taken place, they did not consider that the complainant risked persecution and torture if returned to Georgia. According to the State party, this assessment corresponds with the Committee’s jurisprudence in A.L.N. v. Switzerland and X, Y and Z. v. Sweden.e 4.6 The State party emphasizes that there is no objective evidence to support the complainant’s claim that she has been subjected to torture,f nor has it been established that she is wanted by the Georgian authorities.g The State party emphasizes that after her liberation, the complainant moved to the Gegetjkori region and resumed her political activities, but that she has not alleged any problems with the authorities while she resided thereh and that the events that motivated her departure date relatively far back in time.i 4.7 The Refugee Board did not attach importance to the declaration of the complainant’s neighbours, that the authorities had persecuted her family by visiting and threatening them, as this allegation was submitted at a later stage in the asylum proceedings and had not been mentioned in her previous statements. The State party refers to the Committee’s practice that if a complainant changes his or her account during the processing of the asylum application, it is important that a logical explanation be given for doing so.j 4.8 The State party also considers it to be consistent with the Committee’s jurisprudence that due weight be given to the fact that the Convention against Torture entered into force for Georgia on 25 November 1994.k