CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 the extent that it would justify the authorities’ alleged interest in them. Neither had they made it seem probable that they were sought by the authorities and therefore in danger of being prosecuted or punished. The complaint 3. The complainants claim that, by deporting them to Belarus, Sweden would violate their rights under article 3 of the Convention against Torture. They allege that they have disseminated information regarding the political situation in Belarus by means of flyers, orally and on the Internet. They have participated in several opposition demonstrations and, during one such demonstration, they were arrested and the second complainant was tortured. The complainants called for an anti-government protest before the 2010 presidential elections and sought permission to participate in such protests. Furthermore, they contend that the Belarusian police continuously harass them by means of a house search, threatening phone calls and summonses by the Minsk police. Taking into account the existence of consistent patterns of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in Belarus, the complainants claim there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk of them suffering torture, if they are expelled to Belarus. 3 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 24 May 2013, the State party submits its observations on the admissibility and merits. It recalls the facts of the case and notes that the first complainant came to Sweden for the first time in March 2004 and applied for asylum after being caught by the police. He did not have any identity documents and gave a false name, account of his background and reasons for his asylum application, which have been confirmed to be false during the asylum proceedings.4 According to the State party, he stated, inter alia, that he was under 18 years of age and he had never been politically active in Belarus. The Migration Board rejected his asylum application and ordered his expulsion to Belarus, which took place on 14 May 2005. Subsequently, the first and second complainants visited Sweden in 2009 on a visa valid from 20 August 2009 to 20 February 2010. They left Sweden in November 2009 and came back in February 2010 on a visa valid from 25 February 2010 to 25 February 2011. 4.2 The State party further notes that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and notes that it is not aware whether the present case was or is subject to any other such investigation or settlement. The State party acknowledges that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case, as required in article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 4.3 The State party further maintains that the complainants’ assertion that they are at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention if returned to Belarus fails to achieve the minimum level of substantiation 3 4 In support of their claim, the complainants also refer to various international reports, inter alia, the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Belarus of 10 April 2012 (A/HRC/20/8) and the report of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly on the situation on Belarus of 9 January 2012, which state that the situation of human rights has significantly deteriorated in Belarus following the presidential elections. During the 2011-2013 proceedings concerning the complainants’ asylum applications with regard to the false information provided during the 2004 proceedings, the first complainant stated as a reason his planned return to Belarus to fight against the regime at the time. He claimed he supplied false information because he wanted to stay in Sweden for a limited time and then return. 5