CERD/C/112/D/74/2021 engagement in political activities within or outside his or her State of origin; evidence as to the credibility of the petitioner; and the general veracity of his or her allegations. 37 7.5 The Committee notes that, according to the petitioners, country-of-origin information indicates that in North Macedonia, perpetrators of violence against women and Roma persons often go unpunished and the State party refers in its assessment to general facts that do not reflect their personal situation. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that North Macedonia is considered a safe State within the meaning of article 6a (2) (a) of the Asylum Act, that in 2023 this was confirmed by the Federal Council and that, furthermore, North Macedonia is included in the European Commission’s list of safe States, which means that it meets applicable criteria regarding the existence of stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The Committee observes that the petitioners have not demonstrated the existence of a situation of systematic violations of human rights, including those of ethnic minorities, in North Macedonia. 7.6 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the petitioners have provided no evidence that they approached the North Macedonian authorities to obtain adequate protection against the alleged violations. It notes that the petitioners have admitted that they have no documentary evidence of the violence and threats to which they were subjected. In these circumstances, the Committee is not in a position to conclude that the petitioners have demonstrated that they have suffered violence in the past, which could justify a possible protection measure under the Convention. 7.7 With regard to the violation of article 5 (e) (iv) of the Convention, the Committee notes the petitioners’ allegation that G.I. was raped in North Macedonia by unknown persons apparently closely connected to the Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity. As a result of the rape, she attempted suicide both in North Macedonia and in Switzerland and developed a tendency towards self-harm, with doctors detecting signs of post-traumatic stress disorder. 7.8 The Committee also notes that the State party highlights contradictions regarding the timing of G.I.’s alleged suicide attempt and the reasons for it. It further observes that the petitioners do not contest the contradictions concerning the periods in which G.I. attempted suicide, or the presence or absence of her children at the time of her rape and suicide attempt, but retort that these contradictions in no way detract from the veracity of their allegations concerning G.I.’s rape. The Committee further notes that the petitioners indicate that G.I. is not seeking to avoid deportation to North Macedonia to benefit from better care in Switzerland but doubt the possibility of their obtaining in North Macedonia the care she needs, as persons of Roma ethnicity and because of their poverty. 7.9 The Committee recalls that it is up to the petitioners to present an arguable case – that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the risk of their right to security and physical safety being seriously violated because of their ethnic or racial origin is foreseeable, personal, present and real. The Committee recalls that it is not its responsibility to review findings regarding the facts in a case unless it is possible to prove that the decisions of the national courts were clearly arbitrary. 38 The Committee notes that the petitioners had ample opportunity to provide the national authorities, namely the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court, with supporting evidence and more information about their claims. 8. Acting under article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention, the Committee is of the view, in the light of the material in the case file, that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of any of the provisions of the Convention. 9. Notwithstanding the conclusion reached in the present case, the Committee notes the guarantee provided by the State party that the petitioners may apply for a re-examination of the first-instance decision to order their expulsion if the enforcement of that decision might 37 38 12 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 49. Torregrosa Lafuente et al. v. Spain (CCPR/C/72/D/866/1999) para. 6.2, and Hart v. Australia (CCPR/C/70/D/947/2000), para. 4.3. GE.24-07887