CAT/C/20/D/65/1997 page 5 application and reinstated the deportation order. It is submitted that the Board supported its decision by citing inconsistencies in statements by the author about how he received his injuries and from the fact that he had waited until the rejection of his first application to document his torture history for the Board. Further, it is stated that the Board did not find credible his assertions of continued political writing since arriving in Sweden. 2.15 On 1 January 1997 the author resubmitted his application requesting that it be reviewed in the context of changes to the Swedish Aliens Act, effective 1 January 1997. The author’s counsel states that on 10 February 1997 the Board rejected this application holding that there could be no reconsideration of previously examined circumstances, and further that the new legislation was of no significance to the case. 2.16 His counsel indicates that inconsistencies in the author’s story have been due to post-traumatic stress disorder, and that his delay in recounting the torture incidents was due to illness (tuberculosis) and cultural differences between himself and the Swedish interrogators at the airport and later, at the Carlslund Refugee Reception Centre. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the standpoint of the Aliens Appeals Board on the political situation in Djibouti is a misinterpretation of the actual circumstances. According to him, the peace agreement referred to is only between the regime and a minor faction of FRUD, and the overwhelming part of FRUD continues its political and military struggle against the regime. He asserts that politically active Afars are arrested on a large scale and that they suffer torture and other inhumane treatments. Further, he claims that the regime also takes actions against the ordinary Afar population, for example, subjecting Afars to constant police surveillance. 3.2 The author maintains that since coming to Sweden he has continued his publicist work against the current government, and is thus considered to be a significant enemy to the regime. He states that the Djiboutian authorities are aware that he is staying in Sweden, and are unhappy with his depiction of Djibouti in his writings. Therefore, he contends that he will face detention, torture and other cruel and degrading treatment if he is forced to return to Djibouti. State Party’s observations 4. On 14 April 1997, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur for New Communications, transmitted the communication to the State Party for comments and requested the State Party not to expel the author while his communication was under consideration by the Committee. 5.1 By submission of 1 July 1997, the State Party challenges the admissibility of the communication but also addresses the merits of the case. It requests the Committee, should it not find the communication inadmissible,