CAT/C/50/D/463/2011 9.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the State party’s observations regarding the human rights situation in Uzbekistan and the migration authorities’ and court’s conclusion that the prevailing circumstances in that country did not in themselves sufficed to establish that the complainant’s forced return to Uzbekistan would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee has also expressed concerns for the events that took place in Andizjan in May 2005 and the subsequent behaviour of the authorities.10 The Committee recalls its concerns at numerous and consistent allegations concerning routine use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment committed by law enforcement and investigative officials or with their instigation or consent, often to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings . 9.6 The Committee notes that the State party has drawn attention to inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s accounts and submissions which call into question h is general credibility and the veracity of his claims. In particular, the complainant provided a false identity and documentation in his original asylum application to the Migration Board, and the documentation provided to the Migration Court in order to prove his alleged real identity was also unreliable. As a result, doubts about his real identity still persist. According to the State party, he was not able to provide any written evidence pertinent to his claims, that he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, prohibited to travel and subjected to control by the police to whom he had to report daily. His statements concerning the alleged mistreatment varied through the proceedings and at beginning referred to acts other than torture. He was not able to provide enough details about the events that took place in Andizjan in May 2005 and changed his initial statements regarding the location of his regiment. 9.7 The Committee also notes that the complainant contests the State party assessment and argues that he did not provide his real identity until he was before the Migration Court because he feared that Uzbek Security Service might find him and take reprisals ; and that he provided enough details concerning the events in Andizjan in May 2005, his participation, his imprisonment and the torture and ill-treatment to which he was subjected. The fact that he had to clarify or modify his original statements was due to his lack of legal background, his fear upon arrival in Sweden, and the lack of more specific questions posed by the migration authorities. He affirms that the medical certificate issued by the Swedish Red Cross, together with all the information provided by him, proves beyo nd reasonable suspicion that he was subjected to torture while in prison. 9.8 The Committee takes note of the observation by the State party that the complainant provided a false identity to the Migration Board and that afterwards the Court could not corroborate the real identity claimed by him; that he modified his original statements on more than one opportunity; that he was not able to provide some basic information as to the events in Andizjan, such as the name of the main square where the demonstration took place; that he did not submit any document as to his conviction by a military court and the prohibition to travel and was not able to provide a description of these documents; and that his allegations of torture were vague and did not provide details about the circumstances in which it was inflected. While the Swedish Red Cross’ medical reports indicate that the complainant has marks in his body that could have been caused by torture, and the risk assessment for asylum seekers from certain groups in Uzbekistan, including those who had any connection with the Andizjan events, were made with great caution by the authorities , the complainant has not provided evidence regarding his allegations of participation in the Andizjan events, his imprisonment, trial and sentence. The Committee observes that, notwithstanding the complainant’s allegations, his children – who initially fled with his 10 12 Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against T orture, Uzbekistan, CAT /C/UZB/CO/3, paras. 6–9. See also concluding observations of the Human Rights CommitteeUzbekistan, CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3, para. 8.