K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION 7 passwords being handed over; and visiting friends and relatives could carry documents to and from Sudan, or post material on his behalf. 29. With regard to the risk to the applicant if his instructions were intercepted, on the basis of the open evidence SIAC considered it very likely that the NISS was already aware of him, the accusations against him and his dispute with the United Kingdom authorities. However, the NISS appeared to have no active interest in him. SIAC further considered that his disputed British nationality would have a “protective effect”. SIAC noted that the closed material confirmed these conclusions. (b) The substantive national security issue 30. SIAC gave judgment in the substantive case on 22 December 2015. In doing so, it noted that the nature of the case was broadly known to the applicant. In particular, the open evidence against the applicant, as set out in the National Security Statement, was that he:  travelled from the United Kingdom to Somalia in October 2009 to engage in terrorism-related activities with [B] and [S];  along with [B] and [S], engaged in a variety of terrorism-related activities which are likely to have been linked to, or directly involved with, the Somali based extremist group Al Shabaab;  engaged in terrorism-related training;  fought against forces of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM); and  associated with known extremists in the United Kingdom and overseas. 31. Following its conclusion in December 2014, SIAC proceeded on the basis that there was no good reason why the applicant could not engage in the appeal and fully instruct his lawyers. However, although there had been “significant communications between him and his solicitors” since that date, and he had made four statements, he had not engaged with the national security case against him in any full or direct way. 32. In view of the fact that the Special Advocates were not engaging with the substance of the closed national security case, SIAC indicated that it would look for the most independent and objective evidence in the closed case and adopt particular caution in drawing inferences adverse to the applicant. It concluded: “36. Even following the cautious approach we have identified, we have come to the firm conclusion that K2 has not been frank in his witness statements. The contents of his statement amount to a denial that he was ever in Somalia. The CLOSED evidence is conclusive that he was present in Somalia at the relevant time. 37. The CLOSED evidence is conclusive that K2 travelled to Somalia in October 2009 to engage in terrorism-related activities, in the company of [B] and [S]. There is convincing evidence that he remained in the company of those men and engaged in a