CAT/C/50/D/463/2011 that she did not have a passport and had received instruction s from her husband. The Migration Board concluded that there was no evidence that they would be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Uzbekistan and ordered to expel the complainant and his wife, pursuant to Chapter 8, Section 7 of the Aliens Act (2005:716). 2.6 The complainant appealed the decision to the Migration Court. In his appeal he stated that he had applied for asylum under a false identity (J.B.M.) because he feared for his safety and that his real name was D.Y., born on 22 February 1981. He submitted a student card and a military booklet to prove his real identity and held that all the other information given was correct. He further held that he had two passports; the first one was taken by the military authorities when he was called to do his military service. The second one was obtained through bribery after his marriage. Although the police took his two passports, he managed to renew the second one in 2006, with a bribe, when he reported he had lost it. 2.7 On 1 June 2010, the Court conducted a hearing in the case. The complainant reiterated his previous allegations and reaffirmed that the authorities had seized his identification and personal documents. Nevertheless, he managed to hide the military booklet which he later submitted to the Swedish migration authorities. He did not disclose his real identity to the Swedish authorities because he was afraid that the Uzbek security service would also chase him in Sweden. The identity documents and diploma that he first submitted to the Swedish authorities belonged to someone else. He claimed that, if returned to Uzbekistan, he would be detained, punished and mistreated even more severely than in the past, and would be sentenced to life imprisonment for travelling abroad. He also informed the Court that his children had returned to Uzbekistan and lived with his parents. When he called them by phone they spoke no more than three or four minutes , as the telephone may be intercepted. The police came to visit his parents twice a week and asked about his whereabouts. He also alleged that he had a kidney condition as a result of torture. 2.8 On 14 June 2010, the Migration Court rejected the appeal, ordered the complainant’s expulsion from Sweden, and forbade him to return to Sweden without the permissio n of the Immigration Board for a period of two years. The Court noted that the photo in the military booklet did not resemble him, and that he could not explain why there was a photograph in it of him when he was 18 years old, rather than a photograph at the time he entered military service. Thus, his new identity had not been proven. It further pointed out that he had not submitted any written evidence and that his narrative was vague and characterized by contradictions. Concerning the events in Andizjan, on 13 May 2005, the complainant was not able to describe the existence of road blocks in any detail, to give names of central places, such as Babur Square, where the demonstrators were, and his assertion that helicopters and airplanes shot the demonstrators was not mentioned in any country report. Furthermore, it was not credible that the complainant was able to get a new passport issued while in prison in 2006. Regarding his conviction, he had provided contradictory information. In his initial submission he stated that he was sentenced to three years imprisonment without trial or public defence counsel, but before the Court he stated that he had been convicted “behind closed doors”. Therefore, his credibility was low and he was not able to show it was probable that he would risk persecution or be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to Uzbekistan. On 16 August 2010, the decision to expel the complainant became enforceable. 2.9 On 8 November 2010, a the Swedish Red Cross’ doctor examined the complainant in accordance with the Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol), and determined the existence of marks related to kicks, punches, cuts with razor blades on the inside of the left arm, burns with a lighter on the left hip and on the right on the back of his leg, hitting with a truncheon on the backs of his legs, scars on the left buttock that could be caused by a penetrating gadget, burns caused by drops of burning plastic on the backside of 4