I think, actually, not only I, but the Supreme Court of Canada has looked at the credibility of those assertions in the case of Mr. Suresh, one of the security certificate individuals named in that group of six, and the Supreme Court of Canada found that there was indeed a prima facie risk that Mr. Suresh would be tortured if he returned to Sri Lanka. You actually have the Supreme Court of Canada indicating that the allegations the individual was making were sufficiently well founded to require Mr. Suresh a new hearing, in effect, a new procedure.
As to the facts of the other individual cases, as a law professor, I've looked into the facts quite extensively, because I teach these cases to my students. Of course it's very difficult for anyone not having access to the full evidence to be sitting before you and saying with any degree of confidence that we know this or that about the case, because in fact what we know about the case represents a small fraction of what is probably before the court.
However, I would ask you, why are you asking that question? Why does it matter whether we have personal views about the individual's credibility or not? The whole point is that the procedure itself is flawed and will not be best suited to actually assessing credibility.