CAT/C/34/D/222/2002 page 9 6.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on the application of article 3, which reads: “Bearing in mind that the State party and the Committee are obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable.” (A/53/44, annex IX, para. 6). 6.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has drawn attention to inconsistencies and serious contradictions in the complainant’s accounts and submissions which call into question the truthfulness of his claims. The Committee also takes note of the information furnished by the comp lainant on these points. 6.6 As regards the first part of the complaint, which concerns the risk of arrest by the police if the complainant returns to Pakistan, the complainant argues that there are criminal proceedings pending against him for blasphemy. 6 Yet the Committee observes that the letters from the complainant’s father dated 20 June 2002 and the President of the Christian Lawyers Association dated 17 August 2002 which mention those proceedings are contradicted by the CLA President in the e- mail he sent on 28 October 2002; this has, incidentally, been remarked upon by the State party, but the complainant has made no comment. Similarly, the fact that the complainant spent seven months at his father’s second home, then two months at his uncle’s home, without being troubled by the police when the police were supposed to be searching for him for blasphemy, particularly after he had escaped from a police station, does not seem plausible. The same can be said of the complainant’s acquisition of a new passport and untroubled departure from Karachi airport. The complainant’s later comments on these points (see paragraphs 5.3 and 5.5 above) do not satisfactorily address these inconsistencies. 6.7 The second ground put forward by the complainant for his arrest has to do with his apostasy in 1996. The Committee observes that this argument was only put forward as a reaction to the Swiss authorities’ decisions to turn down the complainant’s application for asylum, and the complainant - who had a lawyer in attendance throughout the proceedings - has been unable to provide a consistent and convincing explanation for its tardy production. The complainant does not contest this point in his comments of 4 August 2002. 6.8 As regards the second part of the complaint, which concerns threats to the complainant’s physical safety, the Committee finds, first, that the complainant has not substantiated his allegation of ill- treatment while in detention in early January 1999. Similarly, the assertion by the complainant that he is in danger of being tortured by the police and condemned to death if sent back to Pakistan are contradicted by the Committee’s observations concerning the risks of arrest. This assertion, too, is supported by inadequately substantiated, not to say contradictory, arguments from the complainant in his comments of 4 August 2002. 6.9 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not demonstrated that there are substantial grounds for believing that sending him back to Pakistan would expose him to real, substantial and personal danger of being tortured within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.