CAT/C/50/D/463/2011 arrival to Sweden. He argues that an untrue statement by itself is not a reason for refusal of refugee status and it is the authorities’ responsibility to evaluate such statement in the light of all the circumstances of the case. 5.4 The State party’s authorities should have taken into account the fact that the first interview before migration authorities was short and he did not have a legal representative. In contrast, in the second interview, held on 17 April 2009, the complainant, who had already a legal representative, answered all questions in detail and gave a clear description of what happened in Andizjan. He told the interviewer that he was torture d during imprisonment. He also pointed out that he was beaten and mistreated. Therefore, the interviewer should have asked more questions regarding these allegations , all the more so as he came from a country where gross human rights violations occur. 5.5 The complainant also noted that he was afraid that the interpreter was a spy for the Uzbek Security Service, since several reports support the fact that this Service is very active in countries where Uzbek asylum seekers are present. This fear also explains why the complainant applied for asylum with a false name. However, the State party’s assessment of his credibility relies on the sole fact that he presented false documents on his arrival in Sweden. 5.6 As to his description of the events in Andizjan, he contests the State party’s position that he gave unclear and contradictory information. From the protocol of the second interview, dated 17 April 2009, it is clear that there was a misunderstanding in the beginning, that was solved later in the interview, when he told the authorities that the regiment was located 40 minutes to one hour aside Andizjan. The same information was given during the Migration Court’s hearings. He also gave a detailed description of the questions asked concerning the incident in Andizjan from what he saw and what was happening around him. He is not from Andizjan town and this explains why he lacked knowledge about streets’ names. 5.7 The State party’s argument that in the events in Andizjan, shooting from helicopter and military aircraft did not occur is contradicted by an article published on BBC News, on 17 May 2005, according to which, some persons declared that helicopters started shooting at them. 5.8 As to the complainant’s contradictory information about the way he was imprisoned and whether he had a trial, he upholds that the difference between his statement in the second interview before the Migration Board, on 17 April 2009 and the information given at the Court’s hearing is explained by his lack of legal background and his poor educational level. 5.9 The information given about the incidents in Andizjan and the complainant’s situation should have been enough for the Migration Board’s authorities to ask further questions if in doubt about his statements.8 5.10 The medical certificate issued by a doctor of the Swedish Red Cross supports that it is probable that the injuries and scars that the complainant has on his body have been caused in accordance with his claims. He has shown it to be probable that he was present during the incident in Andizjan; that he was sentenced to prison; and that he was tortured while in custody in Uzbekistan. In the light of the reports indicating that anyone can be connected to the incidents in Andizjan has a well-founded fear of persecution or harm if returned to Uzbekistan, the complainant claims that the State party fails to assess adequately the serious personal risk he would face if returned, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 8 T he complaint refers to the complainant No. 149/199, A.S. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 24 November 2000. 9