CAT/C/79/D/1055/2021 State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 8 November 2021, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. The State party first recalls the facts and proceedings brought before the Swiss authorities and courts. 4.2 The State party notes that the Schengen visa that enabled the complainant to travel to Europe was issued to him by Switzerland in connection with his participation in an international conference held in Geneva from 17 to 19 September 2018. The State party also points out that, according to the information in the case file, the complainant did not take the return flight scheduled for 20 September 2018. Contrary to the undertaking he had given at the time of his visa application, the complainant did not inform the Swiss embassy in Cameroon of his return to the country. For this reason, according to the State party, the complainant was banned from entering Switzerland for a period of three years from 28 December 2018 to 27 December 2021. 4.3 The State party points out that the State Secretariat for Migration, in explanation of its decision to reject the complainant’s asylum application, expressed doubts about his statements concerning the circumstances of his arrest and release, the events he had allegedly experienced and the interest that he might arouse on the part of the Cameroonian authorities. The State Secretariat considered that the description of the conditions of detention experienced by the complainant in Yaoundé was evasive and clichéd, and that his claim relating to his political turnaround in favour of Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun was not convincing. The State Secretariat also noted that the circumstances in which the complainant travelled to, and arrived in, Switzerland were unclear. 4.4 The State party further points out that the Federal Administrative Court, in its ruling of 21 December 2020 rejecting the complainant’s application, noted that the complainant had not been in Cameroon between September 2018 and December 2019, during which time the key events in his account of the facts supporting his application occurred. In support of this conclusion, the Court noted that the complainant’s passport contained a stamp for his arrival in Europe at Roissy airport on 16 September 2018 but no stamp corresponding to his departure from Europe, whereas the complainant claimed that he had left Europe from Paris, with his passport, before 20 September 2018. The Court also noted that, although the passport contained an entry stamp for Cameroon (Yaoundé), dated 20 September 2018, it was unclear when and in what circumstances this stamp had been added to the document, since the complainant did not report to the Swiss embassy in Cameroon in September 2018. Furthermore, the complainant has not explained how he was suddenly able to recover his passport, which had supposedly been taken away from him by the Cameroonian authorities. The State party notes the Court’s statement to the effect that the complainant produced neither the aeroplane ticket nor the receipt for its purchase, which he claimed to have bought with his own bank card. Nor has he provided an aeroplane ticket or any proof of his alleged trip from Nigeria to Switzerland in December 2019. 4.5 The State party adds that, according to the Federal Administrative Court, the evidence produced by the complainant, namely, copies of two slips relating to cash deposits to his bank, and a medical certificate dated 4 January 2019, did not constitute proof of his presence in Cameroon between September 2018 and December 2019. The Court found that, although the slips were indeed dated 5 December 2018 and 17 January 2019, the dates were clearer than the rest of the text on the slips and in a different font and they appeared to have been added after the fact. Furthermore, the medical certificate dated 4 January 2019 that was submitted by the complainant did not state when the medical examination had taken place. Lastly, the screenshots of the complainant’s account on a social network did not prove that he had been in Cameroon in early 2019 either, since it was not clear when or where the photos posted on this platform in January and March 2019 had been taken. 4.6 The State party notes that article 3 of the Convention provides that “no State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence 4 GE.24-09258