Observations by the State party 4.1 By letter of 23 November 1998, the State party informed the Committee that it did not contest the admissibility of the communication. Nevertheless, in its observations dated 11 March 1999, it requests the Committee to make sure that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 4.2 With regard to the merits of the communication, the State party makes it clear first of all that, in accordance with previous decisions of the Committee,a it in no way opposes the absolute nature of article 3. It adds, however, that while the author's fears must be analyzed in the light of the general situation prevailing in the country, it must also be determined that any risk is personal, real and foreseeable. 4.3 The State party points out that the author made many contradictory statements during questioning on vital points of his story. For example, the author did not mention the events of 18 June 1997 during his first hearing and even specified that he had had no problem with the new Congolese authorities prior to 6 October 1997. Moreover, the circumstances surrounding his departure from Kinshasa for Bas-Zaire were brought up only during the second hearing. He also contradicted himself with regard to the person who had helped him leave the hospital; the first time he had said it was a nurse and the second time that it was a doctor. Also, while at the second hearing he was able initially to give the doctor's name and approximate address, a little later he could no longer remember. The State party notes that the author has provided no explanation for these contradictions in his communication. 4.4 Furthermore, the State party questions the plausibility of certain facts introduced by the author only towards the end of the proceedings, for no apparent reason other than to strengthen his argument for asylum. In particular, he suggested that working for Hyochade implied that he had to be a member of the People's Revolution Movement (MPR 6 the single party during President Mobutu's regime). As to reasons for his arrest in October 1997, it was only at the end of the proceedings that he mentioned treason, complicity in murder and embezzlement. 4.5 In the view of the State party, some parts of the author's story are completely implausible, such as the claim that, during his escape, he was wheeled out of the hospital on a bed hidden under a sheet. There are also serious doubts about his escape from the country, since he came to Europe by plane, the most tightly controlled means of transport, although he claims that he was wanted on serious charges. 4.6 The State party considers it surprising that the author produced no medical certificate, even though he claimed to be suffering from the after-effects of the acts of torture to which he had been subjected and that these acts were recent enough for a doctor to determine that they had taken place. No documentary evidence was produced to explain these contradictions in the author's account and hence he cannot use the argument put forward in previous cases before the Committee, whereby "the effects of a post-traumatic stress disorder, as in the case of many torture victims" may account for "the inconsistencies that appear in some statements".b 4.7 While acknowledging that a person does not have to have been tortured in the past to have a justifiable fear of being tortured in the future, the State party points out that there is no further evidence in the author's case to prove this risk exists. Referring to the Committee's decision in the case of Seid Mortesa Aemei v. a Gorki Ernesto Tapia Paez v. Sweden, Communication No. 39/1996, section 14.5. b Babikir v. Switzerland, Communication No. 38/1985. 117