CAT/C/50/D/467/2011 arguable case that he or she faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk. 11 The Committee further recalls that in accordance with its General Comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, 12 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, to freely assess the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 7.4 The Committee notes that the State party has drawn its attention to perceived factual inconsistences in the first complainant’s account. The Committee also takes note of the information furnished by the first complainant on the points raised by the State party. It considers, however, that these inconsistences in the first complainant’s account do not constitute an obstacle for the Committee’s assessment of the risk of torture in case of his expulsion to Yemen. 7.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the first complainant’s claims that between May 2009 and January 2010 he had been arrested and detained by the Yemeni authorities on three separate occasions and that in the course of these detentions he had been subjected to beatings and threats. It further notes the State party’s argument that these allegations were not substantiated by the first complainant before the State party’s asylum authorities during the ordinary asylum proceedings and that the evidence provided by him did not specify the reasons for any of these detentions. The Committee also notes that the State party questions the authenticity of the attestations issued by the alMansoura prison authorities, al-Mauna, the Southern Democratic Assembly based in the United Kingdom and the office of the former President of the Democratic Republic of Yemen, because, inter alia, they did not indicate the source of the information that they contained and did not fully correspond to the first complainant’s own accounts. The Committee also takes note of the information furnished by him on these points. It observes in this regard that the first complainant has not submitted any evidence supporting his claims of having been subjected to ill-treatment by the Yemeni authorities prior to his arrival in Switzerland, including medical reports attesting that he was injured as a result of receiving a truncheon blow to his nose, or suggesting that the Political Security Organization or other authorities in Yemen have been looking for him since. 7.6 The Committee further notes the first complainant’s allegations about his involvement in the activities of the Southern Democratic Assembly. It notes, in particular, that he claims to hold an important position in the Southern Democratic Assembly in the canton of Fribourg, with his name and photographs being linked to this organization and published on the Internet. The Committee further notes the first complainant’s claim that he comes from a politically active family and that his family name alone is sufficient to trigger the suspicion of the Yemeni authorities, but observes that he has not elaborated on this claim or presented any evidence to support it. In the Committee’s view, the first complainant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence about the conduct of any political activity in Switzerland of such significance that would attract the interest of the Yemeni authorities, nor has he submitted any other evidence to demonstrate that the authorities in his home country are looking for him or that he would face a personal risk of being tortured if returned to Yemen. 7.7 The Committee concludes accordingly that the information submitted by the first complainant, including the unclear nature of his political activities in Yemen prior to his 11 12 See, inter alia, Communication No. 203/2002, Mr. A.R. v. The Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003; and Communication No. 258/2004, Mostafa Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005. See, inter alia, Communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, paragraph 7.3. 13