CAT/C/34/D/222/2002 page 5 4.5 Presented with a request to review its decision, in which the complainant mentioned for the first time that he had renounced Islam in 1996, the Swiss Asylum Review Commission turned down the request in a fresh decision on 13 November 2002, referring in the main to an interim decision of 10 October 2002 by the reporting magistrate who pointed out that the complainant could not satisfactorily explain why he had not mentioned his apostasy before the review proceedings. The reporting judge also observed that the evidence supplied by the complainant would not alter the Commission’s conclusions regarding the blasphemy proceedings. In the course of those proceedings the complainant had produced two reports from the Lahore police (dated 16 June 1994 and 9 February 1998), the first relating to an alleged kidnapping, the second, to allegations that the complainant had had intimate relations with, or even raped, a Muslim woman. In the view of both the reporting judge and the Commission, the two reports proved that the complainant had no longer been ha ving problems with the authorities by the time he left Karachi. 4.6 The State party then proceeds to discuss the grounds for the Commission’s decisions in the light of article 3 of the Convention and the Committee’s case law. It considers that the complainant has done no more than remind the Committee of the arguments raised before the national authorities, producing no new evidence that might challenge the Commission’s decisions of 5 August and 13 November 2002. Among other things, the State party considers, the complainant fails to explain the inconsistencies and contradictions in his allegations to the Committee: quite the contrary, he confirms them. 4.7 As regards the complainant’s fears of being immediately arrested by the police if sent back to Pakistan and of his life and physical safety being threatened by his former fellow students and supporters of the Muslim Students Federation, and the letter from the complainant’s father stating that, under pressure from the Muslim Students Federation, the police were going to his home every month to try and arrest his son, the State party finds it surprising that, according to an e-mail message dated 28 October 2002 from the President of the Christian Lawyers Association, no complaint has been lodged against him. The State party draws attention, furthermore, to the blatant contradiction between that e- mail and the letter dated 17 August 2002 (see paragraph 3.2 above), both signed by the same individual. 4.8 In the course of his appeal before the Swiss Asylum Review Commission, the complainant produced his passport, issued in Lahore on 12 August 1999 when, according to him, the local security forces were looking for him in connection with a criminal charge of blasphemy. Moreover, the complainant had apparently not encountered the slightest problem when, leaving Pakistan, he departed from Karachi airport on 5 September 1999. The State party finds it highly improbable that a person wanted by the police for a capital offence could have a new passport issued and take off from Karachi airport without incident. 4.9 Citing the Committee’s case law to the effect that article 3 affords no protection to complainants who simply claim they are afraid of being arrested on returning to their home countries1 and in view of the foregoing, the State party argues it may reasonably be concluded that the complainant would not be in danger of arrest if sent home to Pakistan. Even if he were, that “would not constitute substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. 2