CAT/C/51/D/438/2010 4.14 The State party notes that the domestic authorities found that the complainants’ accounts as to the problems with the Tunisian police were conflicting. Thus, the first complainant stated that, apart from the two summonses to the Ministry of the Interior, the police had visited the house regularly and taken him to the police station within a period of two months. On the other hand, the second complainant stated that the police had noted that her husband was ill, after interrogating him for the first time upon their repatriation to Tunis and had not bothered him since. She also stated that the police had frequently visited their house in order to check if the first complainant was there; they had not taken him anywhere. Such visits had started upon their return to Tunisia, in December 2006 and ended a month before their departure in September 2007. The first complainant argued that the conflicting statements were due to a misunderstanding. The second complainant subsequently stated that she could have been absent from the home when the police had taken her husband to the police station and that he had not told her of being interviewed by the police as he did not want to worry her. The domestic authorities were not convinced by these arguments. 4.15 The State party submits that, independently of the divergent accounts given by the complainants, the essential aspects of their statements go against all logic and general experience. Thus, if the first complainant had indeed been targeted by the Tunisian authorities, he would have never been able to obtain a passport and leave Tunisia, legally and with no difficulty, by land. The State party does not find it credible either that the complainant, if he feared arrest or harm, would have remained in Tunisia for about four months after obtaining, in April 2007, the passport which facilitated his departure from the country. 4.16 The State party further submits that, as established by the domestic authorities, the summonses provided by the complainants are not decisive. Their authenticity cannot be established. The complainants’ explanation that the originals were taken away by the Tunisian authorities after the interviews is not compelling, to the extent that is contrary to usual practice. In light of the above, the State party endorses the grounds adduced by the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court regarding the lack of credibility of the first complainant’s allegations. It notes that the complainant’s claim that he would face the risk of torture if returned is not supported by evidence and lacks substantiation. 4.17 With regard to the first complainant’s health condition, the State party notes that it is not a criterion to establish, within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, whether there are substantial grounds to believe that he would face the risk of torture, if returned. Furthermore, in light of the Committee’s jurisprudence, the aggravation of the condition of an individual’s physical or mental health by virtue of deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the Convention.6 The State party notes that the first complainant submitted to the domestic authorities a number of medical reports to show that he was suffering from chronic hepatitis C, tuberculosis and depression. The domestic authorities established that on the one hand, his depression was linked to the rejection of his asylum applications and that on the other hand, his psychological problems could be treated in Tunisia. Hepatitis C, which can only be cured in 40 per cent of cases and which has a high prevalence in Tunisia, can also be treated there. The two medicines prescribed to the complainant, as well as their substitutes, are available on prescription in Tunisia. In addition, the complainants could count on their family network when they were repatriated in December 2006. Owing to 6 See, for instance, communication No. 227/2003, A.A.C. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 16 November 2006, para. 7.3. 9