“a political activist [who is] committed and opposing to [sic] the Government of Sudan since June 30, 1989, when the Democratic Government was overthrown”. As the RRT member noted in the reasons for her decision, the complainant never claimed to either DIMA or the RRT that he was a political activist from the time of the coup. In fact, at the second RRT hearing, he claimed that he had been active only in 1992 and 1993. 4.10 The State party notes that the evidence given both orally and in writing to the RRT, a member of the local Sudanese community, whom the complainant met for the first time in Sydney, is of equally doubtful probative value. She stated at the first RRT hearing that she did not know the complainant in Sudan, but went to school with two of his cousins, and that she telephoned the London branch of the Umma Party to confirm his membership. While her claims may be true, the State party deems information about the level of generality she obtained from the London Umma branch to be less significant than the complete absence of documentary evidence from the complainant himself regarding his Umma membership and his alleged reputation as a political dissident. Her statement, if accepted, merely supports the complainant’s claim that he is of Sudanese origin. 4.11 On the issue of the complainant’s alleged conscientious objection, the State party submits that his evidence before the RRT regarding compulsory military service was contradictory and unconvincing and there is no independent corroborating evidence of his conscientious objection to the civil war. The State party sets out in detail the complainant’s evidence on this issue to the first and second hearing of the RRT, which differs in many respects. Significantly, the member of the second RRT did not accept his claims concerning his being called up for duty and did not except that the letter provided by the complainant as evidence that he had been called up to fight for the PDF was genuine. The State party submits that the complainant provided no evidence that he would be treated as a deserter. Even if it were to assume that he is a conscientious objector and that he would be forced to participate in the civil war through non-discriminatory conscription, this does not amount per se to torture as defined in the Convention. 4.12 The State party submits that even if it were accepted that the complainant has either evaded the draft or deserted, there is little evidence to suggest that this would place him at risk of torture if he is returned to Sudan. Since the enactment of the new Sudanese Constitution in 1998, torture or execution carried out in any circumstances, including desertion, is illegal. Having carefully assessed the available information, the State party believes that the complainant would not face torture or execution as a result of avoidance of military service. Even if the complainant did face some form of sanction for his claimed “desertion”, the available information indicates that he would be classified as a draft evader rather than a deserter, and thus face a prison sentence of no more than three years. 4.13 The State party concedes that Sudan has a poor human rights record, and that both government and non-government forces continue to commit abuses of human rights. It notes the general findings of the Commission on Human Rightsd that a failure of the united Inter Governmental Authority on Development to consolidate the 1994 Declaration of Principles (DOP) agreed to by the Sudanese Government and the warring factions resulted in the continuation of the conflict in the south. However, it argues that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country. Specific grounds must exist to indicate that the alleged victim is personally at risk of torture by removal. Such grounds must go beyond mere theory or suspicion.e 4.14 Even if the State party were to accept that the complainant is Sudanese and that he was arrested at a rally in April 1992, it does not accept that he belongs to a high-risk group. The complainant never practised as a lawyer, he is no longer a student and has not been politically active since April 1992. Moreover, he has been out of Sudan since 1996, from which time onward he has done nothing to raise a profile in Sudan. The complainant does not fit the description of a targeted “rank and file activist or student”, nor that of a youth, student leader or lawyer who might be viewed as a political opponent and thus a target of torture by the Government.f A UNHCR Sudan Update written in 1997 concludes that Umma and another opposition party, the Democratic Unionist Party, are outdated and that most young people do not pay attention to them. Neither of these sources supports the credibility of the complainant’s claims of belonging to Umma, or of his fear of torture.g 4.15 Finally, advice from Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states that “it is not unusual for Sudanese nationals to remain outside Sudan for long periods, usually for economic reasons”.h Information sought from other countries on conditions in Sudan and profiles of Sudanese refugee applicants indicate that while members of the Umma Party or Ansar are sometimes persecuted in Sudan, many persons claim to be party members. Consequently, it is necessary to verify the veracity of these declarations and the degree of personal commitment of the claimants. 4.16 As to whether the complainant would risk to be subjected to torture for having sought asylum in Australia, the State party submits that there is little evidence to support this possibility. According to the complainant’s own evidence, on returning to Sudan his brother was arrested and interrogated as to where he had been and what he was doing outside Sudan when he returned, but was released unharmed after five days. The State party has been advised by the DIMA officer in Cairo that it is aware of Sudanese nationals who returned after fleeing Sudan following the 1989 coup, including nationals who were granted refugee status in Australia and who suffered no problems with the authorities on return to Sudan. The State party also refers to information from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade from April 2000, which indicated that the Umma Party and the Sudanese Government were attempting to reconcile their differences. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee 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 Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 5.2 The Committee notes that the fact that domestic remedies are exhausted is not contested by the State party. The State party