CAT/C/51/D/438/2010 4.7 With regard to the allegations of torture or ill-treatment sustained in the recent past and the existence of independent evidence thereof, the State party underlines that the complainants have not claimed to have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment, either before the Swiss authorities or the Committee. During the first asylum proceedings, they maintained that their friends had been arrested because of their political activities and that the police had searched the second complainant’s shop and the complainants’ dwellings, for which reason they had decided to flee Tunisia. The competent authorities in Switzerland examined these allegations and considered that they lacked credibility. It was established, in particular, that there was nothing in the case file to conclude that the complainants would be subjected to treatment or punishment prohibited under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. During the second asylum proceedings, the complaints maintained that upon their return in Tunisia in 2006, they had, on several occasions, been summoned to the Ministry of the Interior and questioned as to their residence in Switzerland and their Tunisian contacts there. The Swiss authorities stated that Tunisian nationals returning from a prolonged stay abroad were routinely questioned upon arrival. Furthermore, the complainants had been immediately released after questioning. The Swiss authorities also found that the copies of summonses provided by the complainants were not decisive. The State party points out that the first complainant stated that he had not been arrested but instead admitted to hospital on health grounds. Although the second complainant had been arrested, she had been released with no delay after questioning. Hence, the State party argues that the treatment sustained by the complainants, as claimed before the domestic authorities and the Committee, would not amount to a violation of the Convention. 4.8 With regard to the political activities pursued by the first complainant, the State party notes that both before the domestic authorities and the Committee, he contended that he had supported political prisoners in Tunisia and explained the consequences thereof. These allegations were duly examined by the Swiss asylum authorities, which dealt with the complainants’ first asylum application and two requests for reconsideration. The domestic authorities established that the first complainant’s allegations as to his political activities in Tunisia lacked credibility. Moreover, the complainants presented another version of such activities during the second asylum proceedings. The State party notes that these political activities are in any event insufficient to argue that there are substantial grounds to believe that the complainants would be persecuted by the Tunisian police or subjected to torture, if returned. It underlines that the complainants never alleged that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in relation to such activities, either before their first departure from Tunisia or between their repatriation to Tunis in December 2006 and their second departure therefrom in July 2007. It notes that, even assuming that the first complainant had indeed been politically active in 1998, his political activities would no longer be relevant in the current political context in Tunisia. The State party underlines that the first complainant does not pretend to have been politically involved in Switzerland. 4.9 With regard to the credibility of the complainants and the factual consistency of their claims, the State party submits that the domestic asylum authorities established that their allegations lacked credibility and that their accounts do not lead to the conclusion that there were substantial grounds to believe that they would be subjected to torture, if returned. In particular, the complainants’ first application for asylum of 12 October 2000 was rejected as their allegations, especially concerning the first complainant’s political activities, were considered implausible by the domestic authorities. Thus, at the registration centre, the first complainant stated that he had supported the families of political prisoners for 10 years before having founded, together with two other persons back in 1998, a group which had no connection with any other group. However, in his account to the cantonal authorities, he stated that he had financially supported the families of political prisoners only since 1998, when he had founded a group together with two other persons who belonged to the El- 7