CAT/C/56/D/604/2014 party submits that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subject to torture upon return to Pakistan. The complainant’s communication raises credibility issues; there is no evidence of past torture within the meaning of the Convention; recent reports on country conditions in Pakistan suggest that, even if the complainant could be said to face a real risk of torture in his community, he may have an internal flight alternative which would allow him to live without risk of serious harm in other parts of Pakistan; and the complainant has not substantiated his allegation that he would be at risk upon return to Pakistan as a failed refugee claimant. 4.25 The State party is aware that the Committee does not expect complete accuracy from the complainant of a communication. All that is required is that the evidence may be considered “sufficiently substantiated and reliable”.18 Nevertheless, important inconsistencies in the complainant’s case are “pertinent to the Committee’s deliberations as to whether the complainant would be in danger of being tortured upon return”.19 The State party recalls that general comment No. 1 includes “evidence as to the credibility of the complainant” and “any factual inconsistencies in the claim” as relevant considerations. 20 The State party submits that it is not the role of the Committee to weigh evidence or reassess findings of fact made by domestic courts or tribunals21 and notes that the complainant’s allegations in this communication have been considered by competent, impartial domestic tribunals and were determined not to support a finding of personal risk for him in Pakistan. 4.26 The State party further submits that it is not within the scope of review by the Committee to re-evaluate findings of credibility made by competent domestic tribunals and refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that it cannot review credibility findings “unless it is manifest that the evaluation was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice”. 22 The complainant has not identified or explained any specific examples of “arbitrariness” or “denials of justice”, and the decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board do not suffer from any such defects in this case. Thorough assessments of the complainant’s allegations of risk were conducted by the domestic decision makers, and, accordingly, considerable weight ought to be given by the Committee to the findings of fact made and the conclusions on the lack of credibility.23 4.27 The State party submits that the documentary evidence provided by the complainant does not support his allegations of past torture and is of limited probative value. There are inconsistencies between the descriptions of the complainant’s injuries contained in his complaint and the descriptions of the injuries in the medical records. The complainant alleged that on 5 January 2010, Pakistani Sunni terrorists or Lashkar-e-Taiba opened heavy fire during a religious meeting at his house. He alleges that he had to be hospitalized and that he was treated for the following injuries: (a) injuries to and fracture of the right elbow; (b) injuries to the right side of the face; (c) injuries to the back side of his head; (d) a burn to the left arm and hand; (e) and other injuries to his body. However, not all of these 18 19 20 21 22 23 decision adopted 15 November 2010, para. 7.3. See communication No. 34/1995, Aemei v. Switzerland, decision on admissibility adopted 22 November 1995, para. 9.6. See communications No. 148/1999, A.K. v. Australia, decision adopted 5 May 2004 , para. 6.2; and No. 106/1998, N.P. v. Australia, Views of 6 May 1999, para. 6.6. See general comment No. 1, para. 8. See communications No. 148/1999, A.K. v. Australia, decision adopted 5 May 2004, para. 6.4; and No. 215/1986, G.A. van Meurs v. the Netherlands, Views of 13 July 1990, para. 7.1. See, for example, the decisions in communications No. 148/1999, A.K. v. Australia, para. 6.4; and No. 135/1999, S.G. v. The Netherlands, para. 6.6. See communication No. 370/2009, E.L. v. Canada, decision adopted 21 May 2012, para. 8.7. 11