4.3 缔约国指出，除了向委员会提交申诉以外，申诉人还向委员会提供了一份书面声明，在这份声明中，申诉人说他曾遭到巴基斯坦军方人员的拷打。缔约国表示，书面声明所述事件大体上与在申诉人的保护签证申请中所述事件相似。在保护签证申请中，申诉人说，他曾遭武装人员的绑架和毒打，这些人“是警员，因为他认出他们所穿的制服”。缔约国还说，在 2012 年 8 月 20 日提交负责评估申诉人的保护签证申请的人员的一份书面陈述中，申诉人叙述了书面声明中和保护签证申请面谈过程中提及的事件，并说，这些犯罪行为由“主管机构”或“政府主管机构”人员实施。缔约国还指出，在 2012 年 12 月 6 日难民复审法庭进行的审理中，申诉人提出了证据，证明巴基斯坦主管机构实施了前述犯罪行为；而且，在请求部长采取干预行动时，申诉人说，他担心遭到塔利班和巴基斯坦情报机构的伤害。缔约国指出，在向委员会提出的申诉中，申诉人还表示担心遭到三军情报局的虐待。缔约国说，在各项国内程序中，申诉人并没有提到关于他遭到巴基斯坦军方或三军情报局人员的拷打的指称，也未曾表示担心遭到这两者的伤4 第 15/1994 号来文，Khan 诉加拿大，1994 年 11 月 15 日通过的意见。害。缔约国指出，看来，提交人想要根据他先前向国内决策机构提供的证据，提出关于巴基斯坦军方或三军情报局实施酷刑的新的指称。缔约国认为，这一因素使人们对申诉人的可信度产生怀疑。缔约国表示，考虑到难民复审法庭裁定，如果申诉人被遣送回巴基斯坦，并不存在申诉人将会遭受相当大伤害的实际危险(尽管法庭接受申诉人关于遭到巴基斯坦主管机构人员的绑架和毒打的指称)，这一新的指称并不会给申诉人的申诉增添任何价值。
4.3 The State party notes that, in addition to his complaint before the Committee, the complainant has provided the Committee with a statutory declaration in which he alleges that he was tortured by members of the Pakistan army. The State party notes that the events described in the statutory declaration are substantially similar to the events described in the complainant’s protection visa application, in which he alleged that he had been abducted and beaten by armed gunmen who “were police as he recognized the uniform they were wearing”. The State party also notes that, in a written statement dated 20 August 2012 that was presented to the decision maker who assessed the complainant’s protection visa application, the complainant described the same events referred to in his statutory declaration and protection visa interview, and alleged that the offences had been carried out by “the authorities” or “government authorities”. The State party further notes that, in the Refugee Review Tribunal hearing of 6 December 2012, the complainant gave evidence that the same offences had been carried out by the Pakistani authorities, and that, in his request for ministerial intervention, he claimed that he feared harm from the Taliban and Pakistani intelligence authorities. The State party notes that, in his complaint before the Committee, the complainant also claims to fear mistreatment by the Inter-Services Intelligence. The State party observes that the complainant has not previously raised his alleged torture by or fear of harm from the Pakistan army or Inter-Services Intelligence at any point during the various domestic processes and submits that it appears that the author is raising new claims of torture by the Pakistan army or the Inter-Services Intelligence on the basis of the same evidence he previously provided to domestic decision makers. The State party contends that this factor raises doubts about his credibility. It submits that this new claim does not add any weight to the complainant’s complaint given that the Refugee Review Tribunal determined that there was not a real risk that he would suffer significant harm as a consequence of being returned to Pakistan, even though it accepted his claims of having been abducted and beaten by Pakistani authorities.