153. In the present Communication the Respondent State also challenges the signature on the Departure Declaration Card as a forgery. It observes that the signature on the Departure Declaration Card and the one in the Complainant’s declaration of facts in this Communication do not bear the slightest resemblance. Apparently, in the habeas corpus proceedings, the Complainant’s father and wife similarly challenged the signature on the Departure Declaration Card as not the Complainant’s. 154. Given the importance of the point under consideration, i.e. whether the Complainant was in Djibouti, the Commission has painstakingly examined the record of the habeas corpus proceedings. From that record, the Complainant seeks to rely on the affidavit of the Assistant Director of Immigration Services alleging that he had been deported to Djibouti; the Departure Declaration Card which purports to show that he was deported by air and to Djibouti, and the Notice to Prohibited Immigrant which also purports to show that he signed to being deported by air. 155. Regarding the signatures, the Commission notes, albeit without the assistance of a handwriting expert, that the signatures on the Departure Declaration Card and the Complainant’s Declarationin support of the present Communication are manifestly different. In the Commission’s view the Departure Declaration Card cannot have been signed by the Complainant. It is more probable than not that this document was made up and imputed to the Complainant. Accordingly the Commission does not regard the Departure Declaration Card as plausible evidence of the fact that the Complainant was deported to Djibouti. 156. Assuming the Departure Declaration Card is a valid document, there is a second issue arising on it. It is the identity and capacity of the aircraft that was indicated thereon as having been used to deport the Complainant. The Departure Card indicates the registration number of the aircraft as 5H-TZE belonging to Tanzanair, a private Charter Company. During the oral hearing a picture of the aircraft in question was produced by the Respondent State. It is relatively a small aircraft. The Respondent State submitted, and it was not controverted by the Complainant, that the capacity of the aircraft in question is such that it cannot fly non-stop the distance from Tanzania to the Republic of Djibouti. This is a crucial. It opens the possibility that if indeed he was flown out of Tanzania, he could have been taken to any of the other countries which are not as far as Djibouti. This is not mere conjecture. It is a real possibility when one considers that “Globalising Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition”21 among other reports produced by 21 See above, n2 pp.6, 75-76, 88, 106-107, and paras. 52, 60, 125 30