CAT/C/28/D/185/2001 page 8 in absentia, nor of the relevant provisions of applicable law, that the document has not been signed, and that it has only been submitted as a fax copy. These shortcomings give, in absence of a convincing explanation, reason to doubt also the authenticity of this document. In this context, the State party also points out that Mr. Karoui has not furnished a copy of the judgement itself, although it was delivered more than two years ago, and he should have submitted it, considering that his lawyer and brother in Tunisia have assisted him in obtaining other documentation from the Tunisian courts regarding the 1996 and 1999 judgements. 5.9 With respect to the alleged torture, the State party recalls that Mr. Karoui only mentioned that he had been subjected to torture on other occasions than in 1993, upon a direct question from his counsel, and that the medico-legal reports only report of one mark on his finger deriving from a burning cigarette, although he has alleged that he was burned all over his body. The State party reiterates the Committee’s jurisprudence, that past torture is one of the elements to be taken into account when examining a claim under article 3, but that the aim of the examination is to find whether the individual risks being subjected to torture now, if returned to his home country, cf. X, Y and Z v. Sweden.4 5.10 Finally, with regard to the judgement of 15 September 1999, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, that a risk of being detained as such is not sufficient to trigger the protection of article 3 of the Convention, cf. I.A.O. v. Sweden.5 It also refers to the case A.S. v. Sweden,6 and concludes that Mr. Karoui has failed to provide sufficient reliable information for the burden of proof to shift. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 In a letter of 15 March 2000, Mr. Karoui contests to the State party’s contention that it is primarily upon him to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account. He refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in Kisoki v. Sweden7 that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture. 6.2 Furthermore, in order to explain the 36-day delay between the date Mr. Karoui was granted a visa for Sweden, and his actual departure, counsel submits that he needed this time to secretly prepare his departure, meanwhile he was hiding out with relatives and friends. 6.3 With regard to his knowledge of the coming trial before the summons had been issued, counsel explains this by his experience with arrests and political persecution. He allegedly assumed he would be arrested since one of the members of his workgroup within the Movement had been arrested previously. The increased sentence of eight years compared to his previous sentences is explained by the intensification of the persecution of political opponents in Tunisia. Decision concerning admissibility and examination of the merits 7. Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the