CAT/C/39/D/304/2006 Page 5 Refugee Protection Division.3 The Refugee Protection Division hearing was held on 26 October 2004, in the presence of the complainants’ lawyer. Their application was rejected on 6 January 2005. The tribunal determined that the complainants were not refugees or persons in need of protection, in light of their application’s overall lack of credibility and of their failure to clearly establish that there was a substantial risk to their life or a risk of torture or cruel treatment, or a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico. 4.3 The tribunal found the complainant’s answers “confused” and there were substantial differences between the claims made in some of the documents before the tribunal and the complainant’s testimony. The explanations provided failed to clear up all these conflicting points. 4.4 The tribunal noted that, according to the complainant and the newspapers, her partner had died in Chilpancingo (Guerrero State), but the translation of the death certificate provided gave Chimalhuacan (Mexico State and allegedly the companion’s place of residence). In answer, the complainant had said she had identified the body in Chilpancingo. After the hearing she sent the tribunal a document regarding the transfer of the body, but that document did not explain why the death certificate gave Chimalhuacan as the place of death. 4.5 In addition, the complainant had stated on her Personal Information Form (PIF) that she had lived in Mexico since January 2002 whereas, according to the newspapers, her companion lived in Chimalhuacan. When confronted with this point at the hearing, she answered that she had made a mistake. The tribunal points out that corrections and errors of this kind detract from the complainant’s credibility. 4.6 According to articles in the press, the complainant’s partner had fallen victim to a gang of criminals posing as criminal investigation officers, who had robbed him of everything but his identity papers.4 The complainant explained that it was a plot designed to cover up the role played by the police. The tribunal accepted the newspapers’ version and not the complainant’s, given the latter’s overall lack of credibility. The tribunal wondered why her alleged pursuers should have waited three months to demand such an important envelope and why, after the complainants had moved house in February 2003, the daughter should have continued to go to the same school.5 “Such carelessness on a mother’s part”, the tribunal found, “is not consistent with [the behaviour] of an individual who genuinely fears for the safety of her family.” 3 The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (an independent administrative tribunal) holds hearings in order to determine whether a person is a protected person. A protected person is either a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or a person in need of protection. 4 According to these accounts, the complainant’s partner had been robbed of his truck complete with load. 5 The tribunal notes that the complainant admitted this at the hearing.