CAT/C/50/D/463/2011 Further State party’s observations and author’s comments 6.1 On 5 December 2012, the State party submitted further observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. 6.2 The State party reiterates its previous observations and submits that the NGOs’ and States’ reports on the deterioration of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, to which the complainant refers, were also considered by the State party. Despite the human rights record of Uzbekistan, these reports do not in themselves suffice to establish that he would run a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned. 6.3 After the complainant applied for asylum in 2009, the Migration Board informed him of the importance of substantiating his identity. Nevertheless, in August 2009, that is, several months after his arrival in the State party’s territory, he submitted false documents concerning his identity, and only in April 2010, he presented evidence of another identity. The State party further highlights that the complainant has not commented on the authenticity of these documents, and specifically on how he managed to have a new passport issued in 2006 when he allegedly was in prison. Nor has he explained how he managed to provide the immigration authorities with a copy of a passport in April 2010. Moreover, the complainant’s identity is still not substantiated. 6.4 The complainant’s description of the events that took place in Andizjan and of the time he spent in prison lacks details and is based on information that is accessible to the public through international news reporting. His comments to the Committee do not substantiate the reasons why the Uzbekistan’s authorities would show an interest in him due to his alleged involvement in the Andizjan events. Both the Migration Board and the Migration Court met the complainant and held lengthy hearings with him. However, the vagueness of his account led them to the conclusion that his claims were insufficiently substantiated. There is no indication that the immigration authorities’ decisions were inadequate or arbitrary. 6.5 The State party does not contest that the complainant was ill-treated, as indicated by the medical reports. Nevertheless, he did not substantiate his claim that he took part in the events in Andizjan and he did not present any other ground as to why the Uzbek authorities would have an interest in him if he was to return to Uzbekistan. 7.1 On 9 January 2013, the complainant submitted further comments to the Committee and asserts that at the hearing at the Migration Court, he told the authorities that he had had two passports. The first one was kept by the authorities when he was called to do his military service. The second one was obtained just after his marriage, through a bribe. He got help to renew this second passport with a bribe in 2006, when he reported that he had lost it. With the help of friends he managed to hide his military booklet at the moment of his arrest. He finally informed the Swedish authorities that both original of his passports were with the Uzbek authorities. 7.2 He argues that he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder; that victims of torture, who suffer from that disorder, rarely remember all the details and circumstance in their cases; and that this can also explain why he had such great fear of migration authorities and his lack of trust of the interpreters during the interviews. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10