CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 body, and that considerable weight will be given to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned.11 Moreover, the Committee has held that it is for the courts of the States parties to the Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.12 4.12 The State party contends, in the light of the above and given that the Migration Board and the migration courts are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice, that there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was arbitrary in any way or amounting to a denial of justice in the present case. The State party submits that great weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities, as expressed in their rulings ordering the expulsion of the complainants to Belarus. 4.13 In addition, the State party observes that the complainants have submitted to the Committee that expelling them to Belarus would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention as upon return there they risk being subjected to torture owing to their political activities in Belarus. 4.14 In this connection, the State party, as its migration authorities, finds a number of aspects that give reason to question the complainants’ general credibility. Firstly, the State party finds it pertinent to note that the first complainant gave a false name and false information about the grounds for his asylum application in 2004, which he has not been able to give a credible explanation for. The claim that he was planning to stay in Sweden temporarily and that he submitted false information so that he would later be expelled lacks credibility, especially in view of his refusal to return after having been denied asylum. Secondly, the complainants waited over a year after their arrival in Sweden before applying for asylum. Furthermore, between 2006 and 2009, the complainants travelled in and out of Belarus on their own passports and were also able to acquire new passports and foreign visas without attracting the attention of the Belarusian authorities. Thirdly, the accounts of the complainants’ political activities between 1996 and 2009 are vague and incoherent, and there is a lack of concrete detail in their stories. The State party contends that there are strong reasons to question the credibility of the claims concerning the complainants’ political activities in Belarus, and thus also that the authorities have any interest in them. 4.15 The State party clarifies that, as the migration authorities, it does not question the complainants’ submission that they were arrested by the Belarusian authorities during the demonstration in 2006 and subjected to abuse in that connection. While acknowledging the concerns that the complaints may legitimately express with respect to the treatment they were subjected to in the past, the State party notes that they have not presented any claims suggesting that they have been subjected to treatment defined in article 1 of the Convention since then. This is relevant to the assessment of whether the expulsion of the complainants would be inconsistent with article 3 of the Convention, since the Committee, in paragraph 8 (b) of its general comment No. 1, states that information that is considered pertinent to the risk of torture includes whether the complainant has been tortured in the past and, if so, whether this was in the recent past. 13 As regards the present case, the complainants were subjected to that treatment seven years ago, and thus not in the recent past. 11 12 13 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1, para. 9, and, e.g., communication No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 22 November 2006, para. 8.6. See, e.g., communication No. 219/2002, G.K. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 7 May 2003, para. 6.12. See, e.g., communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, para. 7.3.