calls as threatening after five individuals had accosted the male complainant on the street.
The male complainant also stated that a switchboard operator named M responded to calls
at the Embassy and transferred them to him. The level of detail the complainants provided
to the Swiss authorities demonstrates that they did in fact experience these events.
The Swiss authorities also found contradictions in the complainants’ statements
concerning the arrival of the police at the house of the male complainant’s brother.
However, both complainants testified that after the threats and attack, they learned that a
complaint had been filed against them. While the male complainant was still in Pakistan,
individuals went to his brother’s house and left a message there in chalk. At that time, the
complainants did not know whether these individuals were police officers. It was only after
the male complainant arrived in Switzerland that his brother was visited at home by police
officers who asked where the male complainant was. It is possible that the male
complainant’s statements to the Swiss authorities on this point lacked precision, but he was
merely confused as to whether the individuals who had previously visited his brother had
been police officers or not. This confusion can be explained by the fact that in Pakistan,
there is widespread police corruption, and no government protection is given to Christians
who face criminal complaints. The complainants had no contact with the brother during
their first stay in Switzerland and had not spoken to him about their return to Switzerland.
While the Swiss authorities considered it illogical and incomprehensible that the
complainants had voluntarily returned to Pakistan, it should be noted that the complainants
had a comfortable life there. They provided professional references to the Swiss authorities
to confirm that they were well-established, professionally and socially. No one would
abandon such a situation without a good reason. The male complainant had worked as a
photographer there, and his brother had a photography shop in Lahore. Both complainants
stated to the Swiss authorities that because the male complainant had resigned from his job
at the Swiss Embassy, he hoped that his situation in Pakistan would improve. The
complainants initially went to Switzerland to escape from danger after learning of the
police complaint filed against them. However, at that stage, they had not abandoned their
life in Pakistan. Their statement that they met a fellow Pakistani national in Zurich by
chance and were able to reside with him for a while is too specific and atypical to be false.
Not wanting to be a burden on their compatriot, they decided to return to Pakistan, where
they wished to live. This is why they did not submit a claim for asylum during their first
stay in Switzerland.
During his interview, the male complainant expressly stated that during his first stay
in Switzerland, the police in Pakistan went to his brother’s house in Lahore to seek the
complainants, and that he had only learned about this after his return. This corresponds to
the female complainant’s statement that it was only after the complainants’ return to
Switzerland that they learned that the police had visited the male complainant’s brother
twice to seek the complainants. The male complainant’s subsequent signed written
statement, in which he asserted that his brother had informed him of the police visits in a
telephone call, was based on a misunderstanding. The male complainant wished to state that
he did not call his brother due to the cost of the calls and that he did not know exactly when
the police officers had gone to his brother’s house. The male complainant did not learn of
the police visits over the telephone. Given the length of the interview, it is understandable
that the male complainant failed to correct this mistake during the retranslation of his
written statement. Moreover, the Federal Office for Migration did not interview the
complainants until three years after they submitted their asylum application; this also
explains a certain lack of precision concerning auxiliary matters that does not impugn the
complainants’ overall credibility. Even after three years, their statements were detailed and
In addition, the Federal Administrative Tribunal failed to properly consider the First
Information Report presented by the complainants. Issued on 5 May 2011, the Report
contained the statement of an individual who reported to the Lahore police that the male
complainant had been preaching about the crusades and had repeatedly criticized the



Select target paragraph3