CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 4.16 Furthermore, with regard to the complainants’ allegation that the second complainant did not have any opportunity to read and verify the minutes from the Migration Board’s interview with her, which allegedly resulted in the authorities not being aware of the fact that she was subjected to torture in 2006, the State party maintains the Migration Board’s view that the second complainant had the opportunity to give an account of relevant facts and that her claim therefore lacks credibility. The minutes from the interview show that the complainant had confirmed that she understood the interpreter, and she also confirmed that she had had the chance to say everything she wanted to say. A public counsel was present during the entire interview. The State party notes that the migration authorities have not questioned that the complainant was subjected to abuse in connection with the demonstration in 2006 and have made their assessments accordingly. 4.17 The complainants also allege that they continued their political activities after the incidents in 2006 and claim that they frequently received threatening phone calls from the Belarusian police intended to prevent them from contacting the authorities regarding the incidents. The State party finds that the accounts of the complainants’ political activities are vague and general and do not show that there are grounds to conclude that the Belarusian authorities had any interest in them between 2006 and 2009, when the first and second complainant first arrived in Sweden together. The complainants have been unable to submit any evidence supporting the claim. The State party further notes that, in their submission to the Committee, the complainants’ claim that the second complainant participated in a number of demonstrations after 2006 without being arrested or otherwise harassed by the police. In addition, they were able to travel to and from Belarus on several occasions during the relevant period. 4.18 Moreover, the complainants claim that their political activities in Sweden from 2009 have provoked the Belarusian authorities’ interest in them and therefore they risk being subjected to torture in case of return. They have claimed that, during their stay in Sweden, they inter alia submitted an application, in Belarus, for permission to arrange a demonstration on the day of the Belarusian presidential election on 19 December 2010. They have also alleged that they submitted complaints to various Belarusian authorities and disseminated anti-regime propaganda on the Internet. The application regarding the demonstration was allegedly signed by the first complainant and subsequently delivered to the Belarusian authorities by his mother and stepfather. The latter two allegedly participated in the demonstration and were arrested and detained for two months at the beginning the 2011. Criminal charges were brought against the first complainant’s mother and stepfather for having organized and participated in the event. After their release, the mother and stepfather allegedly informed the complainants that they also were accused of the same offences. The complainants have also alleged that the Belarusian authorities searched their home and made threatening phone calls to them because of their involvement in the demonstration of 19 December 2010. 4.19 The State party notes that the migration authorities have assessed these claims and concluded that they lack credibility. The authorities found it remarkable that one would apply for permission for a demonstration in Belarus from Sweden without any intention of participating in person. There are no documents or other evidence that the complainants in fact submitted any applications or complaints, or disseminated information that was critical of the regime in place on the Internet. Moreover, the migration authorities found it odd that the Belarusian authorities would have accused them of participating in the demonstration on 19 December 2010, since the complainants left Belarus legally and the authorities must have been aware that they were out of the country at the time. The State party maintains the position of the migration authorities and points out that, in accordance with the principle of the burden of proof in asylum cases, it is appropriate to require that the applicant provides relevant information, tells the truth and helps the investigator to clarify all the facts in the 9