CAT/C/71/D/913/2019 2015 and 2017 should not therefore be considered either new information or completely new evidence. It is also important to take into account that the Swedish migration authorities have already examined that claim and did not find the warrant to be good enough evidence. 5.5 Regarding the letter from the Russian human rights activist submitted to the authorities as a letter from an ambassador in France, the complainants note that that person is Musa Taipov, a human rights activist in exile in France. They never described him as an ambassador in France. As for the authenticity of the letter, it should be noted that it is obvious that Mr. Taipov has written the letter, given that he signed it. In order to prove his identity, Mr. Taipov has also sent a copy of his identity documents, as well as his contact information, in case more information from him would be necessary. The fact that the letter was sent from a regular webmail account should not change that assessment; rather, it serves to prove the authenticity of the letter, given that the webmail account can be linked specifically to Mr. Taipov, who is a real person who evidently exists and who evidently has the title that he has indicated. If the letter by itself cannot be considered to constitute adequate evidence, the letter together with all the other submitted evidence must be considered more than sufficient to prove the risks that the complainants will face upon returning to their home country. 5.6 L.H. notes that her statement that her cousin has been murdered cannot be considered as a “new claim”. That is simply wrong, given that she has previously told the Swedish Migration Agency about her cousin. In the minutes of the inquiry of 16 November 2017, it appears that L.H. spoke about her cousin on her mother’s side and that there was information about him on the Internet, something that the Swedish Migration Agency apparently never followed up on in any way, even though it should at least be within the scope of their duty to investigate. 5.7 L.H. submits that neither the Swedish Migration Agency nor the Migration Court has thoroughly examined what she has submitted, nor what she has presented orally. Her explanations have been given little consideration, even though she was coherent and intelligible and provided detailed accounts. The Swedish migration authorities’ assessments have been subjective and not based on objective fact. They have not examined the information that has constantly been available on the Internet and which has been submitted and specifically referred to by L.H. throughout the process. Given that the Swedish migration authorities chose not to examine the information given any further, they have thereby failed to ensure that they had all the information in the case and therefore all the information needed to make a well-informed and legally certain assessment. 5.8 The complainants state that, even if the State party has not committed procedural errors, the question of whether an expulsion would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention is an assessment issue. That means that, despite solid evidence, the State party can make incorrect assessments and therefore incorrect decisions as to when a deportation actually infringes the article. The present communication is therefore not about the Committee reviewing the Swedish authorities’ decisions, but the Committee must nevertheless determine whether an expulsion of L.H. and M.H. would violate article 3 of the Convention. 5.9 The complainants submit that the State party has merely stated that their story was not credible, without ever examining the information available. The authorities argued that the documents could not demonstrate that the complainants were in need of international protection, because they were copies, of a simple nature and therefore easy to forge. However, that statement is very remarkable for several reasons. It should be noted that the fact that the documents, including the summons for interrogation and the arrest warrant referred to by the State party, are of a simple nature does not automatically mean that the documents are not authentic. It should also be noted that, in addition to the documents that have been filed, there are no other documents for L.H. to submit in support of her and her daughter’s need for international protection. The documents submitted look as they do, and that is not something that L.H. has been able to influence. The complainants have submitted a large amount of evidence, including the documents referred to, which, both individually and together, provide strong support for what L.H. has stated orally. In addition, the documents submitted are in line with the relevant country information, which is why they must be considered to have a high evidentiary value and thereby provide further support to the complainants’ accounts. 8