CAT/C/79/D/1055/2021 Switzerland, that he merely took part in a demonstration and that, in any event, the Committee should reject this claim insofar as it was not submitted to the national authorities in connection with the asylum proceedings. The Committee also notes the State party’s conclusion that, on the basis of the information in the case file, the complainant did not have the type of profile that might attract the attention of the authorities in his country of origin. The Committee notes that, besides the documents submitted, the veracity of which is disputed by the authorities of the State party, the complainant has not provided any solid evidence that he had problems with the Cameroonian authorities31 or that he engaged in political activities of sufficient importance to attract the interest of the authorities in his country of origin. 32 It therefore concludes that the information provided does not demonstrate that the complainant would personally be at risk of facing torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if he returned to Cameroon. 7.8 The Committee notes that the torture or ill-treatment to which the complainant claims to have been subjected in the past is one of the factors to be considered when determining his risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment again in the event of his return to his country.33 In the present case, it notes that the complainant claims to have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment during his detention in Cameroon in 2019. The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that these allegations are not credible, owing to the many inconsistencies in them and the fact that the complainant did not return to Cameroon after entering Switzerland on 18 September 2018 for the purpose of attending a meeting in Geneva. 7.9 With regard to the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, the Committee notes that he claims to have carried out political activities in Cameroon in 2018 and 2019. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant never returned to Cameroon during this period. The Committee notes the State party’s claim in support of its argument that the complainant was granted a Schengen visa by Switzerland in order to take part in a conference in Geneva from 17 to 19 September 2018 but did not take the return flight scheduled for 20 September 2018 and did not inform the Swiss embassy in Cameroon of his return to the country, for which reason he was banned from entering Switzerland until 27 December 2021. The Committee further notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s passport bears a stamp for entry into the Schengen area, while the stamp corresponding to his arrival in Cameroon is of dubious provenance. The Committee notes that the complainant does not dispute that he took part in the conference in Geneva from 17 to 19 September 2018. However, he stated that he returned to Cameroon from Paris in September 2018. The Committee further notes that, according to the State party, the complainant was unable to produce a stamp corresponding to his departure from Europe, from Paris, or a receipt for the purchase of his plane ticket or a copy of this ticket, which he claimed to have bought with his own bank card. 7.10 The Committee notes that the complainant, in support of his claim to have travelled to Cameroon, submits that he crossed the border between that country and Nigeria, travelled to Lagos and, once there, with the help of a smuggler, obtained a Nigerian passport bearing a Swiss visa, which was taken from him on his arrival in Switzerland. The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the complainant was unable to produce any evidence of his journey between Lagos and Zurich, which allegedly took place in November 2019. The Committee notes that none of the documents in the case file enables it to reach a different conclusion from that of the asylum authorities who doubted that this trip had taken place. In its assessment, the Committee notes that the complainant had ample opportunity to provide detailed supporting evidence about his claims at the national level to the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. 7.11 The Committee notes that the complainant submitted a number of documents in support of his claim to have been in Cameroon from September 2018 to December 2019, including two certificates indicating his participation in training courses that took place in Yaoundé between October 2018 and January 2019. It notes that the complainant produced several other documents, including a medical certificate, copies of an arrest warrant issued 31 32 33 10 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 49 (f). Z v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/738/2016 and CAT/C/64/D/738/2016/Corr.1), para. 7.6. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 49, (b), (c) and (d). GE.24-09258