and mass violations of human rights.b 3.2The complainant states that the same matter has not been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1By letter of 18 November 2002, the State party contested the admissibility and merits of the complaint, pointing out, as to the facts, that while in Lithuania, the complainant applied on 30 November 1998 to its embassy in Vilnius for a three-week visa in December 1998. At the time, he held a Jordanian passport valid until February 2000. His visa application was rejected on 3 December 1998, but he entered Sweden on 17 December 1999 with a forged Lithuanian passport. 4.2During the complainant’s first interview with the Immigration Board, he stated that he had gone to Lithuania to contact Jewish connections with a view to selling the land. There, an “Arab mafia” had allegedly threatened his life because he wanted to sell land to Jews. Family members in Amman had done likewise. He also said that he had come to Sweden as he wanted to invest in Swedish business and make his living that way. 4.3At subsequent interviews, he stated that in 1975 the Jordanian authorities refused for one year to renew his passport. After family intervention, it was renewed, allegedly only on condition that he would not return. Thereafter, it was renewed every fifth year several times until, in Lithuania, the “Arab mafia” took his passport when he purchased a forged Lithuanian passport. In Sweden, he intended to contact Jews for the purpose of selling his land, and he could no longer obtain a Jordanian passport as his efforts to sell the land were known. He had never been politically active. 4.4The Migration Board, in rejecting his applications for asylum and a residence permit, found, inter alia, that he had not invoked any reason apart from financial ones to sell the land he had inherited. The fact that he was able to obtain extensions of his passport contradicted his contention that he was wanted by the Jordanian security service. Moreover, he was found not guilty both times he was tried in the early 1970s. Accordingly, he had not substantiated that he risked persecution as a refugee, or was otherwise in need of protection. 4.5The Aliens Appeals Board, in turn, found that the complainant had not justified any fear of being in an exposed position in his own country, and observed that his arrests by PLO had taken place some 30 years previously. The claim that his land dealings implied great risks in Jordan was pure speculation. Moreover, it was relevant that he could extend his Jordanian passport on several occasions without difficulty. He thus had not substantiated that Jordanian authorities or others in that country were interested in him on grounds such as political opinion. The Board referred to the Committee’s jurisprudence that the burden of proof was not high in alleged torture cases, complete evidence in clear support of such a claim being rare. The risk of torture upon return, while having to be more than a theoretical possibility or mere suspicion, did not have to be highly probable. Applying these standards, the Board found that there did not exist substantial grounds to believe he would in fact face torture in the event of a return to Jordan, or even a real risk thereof. In support of his subsequent application, the complainant supplied a declaration from his lawyer that the Jordanian authorities had refused to renew his passport and had instead referred him to the security service. 4.6As to the admissibility of the case, the State party argues that the complaint is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, for lacking the minimum substantiation required of an alleged breach of article 3. The State party refers, for this conclusion, to the Committee’s jurisprudencec and its arguments on the merits, set out below. 4.7As to the merits, the State party outlines the salient features of its asylum law, as applicable to the complainant. Under the asylum legislation, an alien is entitled to a residence permit (and a ban on removal) if he/she has a well-founded fear (a) of sentence of death or corporal punishment in the State of origin; (b) of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or (c) of persecution. The Migration Board (at first instance) must hold an oral hearing with the asylum-seeker, and the Aliens Appeal Board does so if this would benefit the proceedings before it. After refusal, a new application advancing factual circumstances not previously considered may be brought, in which the same grounds as above provide entitlement to a residence permit, or where enforcement of the expulsion would be contrary to requirements of humanity. 4.8The State party refers to the Committee’s constant jurisprudence that while it takes into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations in the country in question, it is ultimately the individual concerned who must show a personal risk of being subjected to torture. Concerning the general situation in Jordan, the State party points out that, while not ideal, certain improvements have taken place in the last few years. In 2001, steps were taken to strengthen the judiciary’s independence, and there were neither reports of arbitrary/unlawful deprivation of life by State agents, nor of politically motivated disappearances, nor of political prisoners. The law provides prisoners with the right to counsel and to humane treatment. Most prisons meet international standards and, with some exceptions, the International Committee of the Red Cross is permitted unrestricted access to prisoners and facilities, including those of the General Intelligence Directorate. In 1999, the Government also formally granted access to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, while local human rights monitors are allowed to visit prisons. The Government does not routinely use forced exile. Jordan is a party to several major human rights instruments, including, since 13 November 1991, the Convention against Torture. 4.9As to whether the complainant faces a personal risk of torture, the State party points out that the Swedish authorities apply the test contained in article 3 of the Convention, as well as the Committee’s interpretation, as shown by the Appeals Board decision in particular. The national authority conducting the interviews is in a particularly good position to assess the credibility of the complainant’s statements. In this case, the Migration Board took its decision after three interviews totalling 5.5 hours, which, taken together with the facts and documentation of the case, ensured that it had a solid basis for making its assessment regarding the complainant’s need for protection. 4.10The State party argues that, as a consequence, great weight must be attached to the decisions of its authorities, and refers the