CAT/C/50/D/463/2011 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 12 December 2011, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and merits and requested the Committee to declare the complaint inadmissible as manifestly unfounded, pursuant to article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The State party acknowledges that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainant’s summaries of the Immigration Board’s decision and Immigration Court’s judgment, originally written in Swedish, were of insufficient quality and missed some relevant parts. Therefore, it attaches to its submission a translation of the above-mentioned decision and judgment. 4.3 The information submitted to the Committee about the location where he and his unit were given orders to open fire was not submitted to the Migration Board . It only emerged during the oral hearing at the Migration Court and thus at a fairly late stage in the asylum proceedings. Likewise, the complaint before the Committee states that he was degraded, humiliated, beaten and threatened by the prison guards during his imprisonment in the Kashkadarya prison. However, his written submission to the Migration Board only states that he was subjected to battering during this period. 4.4 The State party argues that, should the Committee conclude that the communication is admissible, the issue before the Committee on the merits is whether the exp ulsion of the complainant would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 4.5 As far as the general human rights situation in Uzbekistan is concerned, the State party submits that since Uzbekistan has been a Party to the Convention since 1995, it is assumed that the Committee is well aware of the general human rights situation in this State party. According to reports issued by other States it is clear that the general human rights situation is problematic.1 It further points out that the Director-General for Legal Affairs at the Swedish Migration Board stated that the risk assessment for applicants from certain groups in Uzbekistan who are at particular risk of persecution, such as persons who have any connection with the Andizjan events, must be made with great caution. However, the assessment must, as usual, also include an examination of whether the applicant has made his asylum application credible.2 4.6 The State party states that, while it does not wish to underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situa tion in Uzbekistan, the circumstances referred to in the above-mentioned reports do not in themselves suffice to establish that the complainant’s forced return to Uzbekistan would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention requires that the individual concerned face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he is to be returned and that the risk of torture must be 1 2 6 T he State party refers to the 2010 United States of America, Department of State, “ Country Report on Human Rights Practice: Uzbekistan” (8 April 2011); the 2010 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, “Foreign and Commonwealt h Office Report – Uzbekistan” (31 March 2011); the Mänskliga rättigheter i Uzbekistan 2010 – 2010 Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Report on Human Rights in Uzbekistan. It also refers to the 2011 Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2011: Uzbekistan”. As to the events in Andijan and their repercussions, it refers to the report published on 21 June 2010 by the Swedish Migration Board, Uzbekistan-Allmän background och aktuell situation; Human Rights Watch, “Saving its Secrets”: Government Repression in Andijan (May 2008); and the International Crisis Group, “Uzbekistan: T he Andijon Uprising” (25 May 2005). T he State party refers to Swedish Migration Board’s document entitled Rättschefens kommentar angående förhållandena i Uzbekistan, published on 6 May 2011.