CAT/C/66/D/776/2016
4.11 In addition, the female complainant responded evasively to questions concerning the
couple’s return to Pakistan. The plane tickets they purchased for their departure to Pakistan
on 31 August 2011 were round-trip, and included their return journey to Switzerland on 1
October 2011.10 Although the male complainant stated that when purchasing the ticket, his
acquaintance had included a return trip in order to secure a lower price, it is not credible
that the planned date of their departure, scheduled months in advance, happened to coincide
with the date on which they in fact urgently departed.
4.12 Several other inconsistencies render the complainants’ claims implausible: (a) it is
illogical that the complainants waited until the appeal procedure before the Federal
Administrative Tribunal to submit the First Information Report, given that the male
complainant’s brother had allegedly received the Report the first time the police visited his
home; (b) the First Information Report bears an English-language stamp, which is
implausible since the rest of the document is in Urdu; and (c) the complainants have not
substantiated their claim that it is difficult for Christians to obtain falsified documents in
Pakistan.
4.13 Moreover, there are several unclear aspects of the complainants’ claims regarding
their passports. The male complainant alleged to have left the passports in the female
complainant’s handbag, which also contained their other possessions with an estimated
value of €1,200, at the house of their host. Once they realized they had accidentally left the
handbag at the house, they immediately returned to the house, but the handbag was no
longer there. This occurred on 7 November 2011, two days before they applied for asylum.
However, the female complainant asserts that she left the handbag on some steps when the
complainants were taking a walk along a river. According to her, the complainants then
went to their host’s house and searched it before returning to the same spot along the river,
but they could not find the handbag. They then called their host, who told them that they
could no longer stay with him, and that they should go to the police to report the lost
handbag. Given the high value of their valuables, it is surprising that the female
complainant left it along the riverbank. It is also surprising that the complainant’s identity
cards, which are also important documents, were not in the lost handbag.
4.14 The letters from the pastors and church leaders that the complainants submitted to
the domestic authorities lack probative value as letters of convenience. It is also surprising
that the male complainant informed the pastors of the alleged threats, but not his
supervisors at the Swiss Embassy.
4.15 In view of the foregoing, there are no grounds for concluding that removing the
complainants to Pakistan would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligations under
article 3 of the Convention.
Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits
5.1
In their comments dated 17 November 2017, the complainants maintain that the
State party merely reiterates the arguments invoked by the Federal Office for Migration and
the Federal Administrative Tribunal, and does not respond to the explanations the
complainants provided in their communication. The complainants explained in detail their
reasons for fleeing Pakistan. Explanations of flight from a country can often seem illogical
or implausible to persons living in a safe country, as these journeys are complex and can be
misunderstood.
5.2
The State party criticizes the male complainant for waiting until the appeal
procedure to present the First Information Report as evidence. However, as already
explained, during their interview on 4 November 2014, the State party required the
complainants to provide the Report as soon as possible. They complied with this request as
quickly as possible, and received the Report a few weeks later, on 8 December 2014. In the
meantime, the Federal Office for Migration had already rejected the complainants’ asylum
application four days earlier. The complainants were not in a position to provide the Report
prior to the issuance of this decision. The rapidity with which their asylum application was
rejected, despite the authorities’ request that they provide the Report, calls into question the
10
GE.19-13276
The State party provides a copy of the complainants’ e-tickets.
7