CAT/C/56/D/643/2014 Facts as presented by the complainant 2.1 The complainant is from Tashkent, Uzbekistan. He is a devout Muslim and prays five times a day. On a number of occasions, he had been stopped by police who urged him to shave off his beard. He had previously worked as a driver in the military, participated in the events of 2005 in Andijan, and worked for the Government. 2.2 On 30 April 2013, the complainant was stopped by two police officers on his way home from a mosque. He was questioned because he had religious attributes on him. As he could not show his passport, he was taken to a police car. In the car, he became agitated and started to criticize the Government and the ruling regime. The police officers became violent and, in self-defence, the complainant beat them and fled. 2.3 On 1 May 2013, the complainant left the country illegally and travelled to Sweden. He arrived in Sweden on 12 May 2013 and applied for asylum on the same day. On 27 September 2013, the Swedish Migration Board rejected his application because it considered that the complainant’s story lacked credibility. On an unspecified date, the complainant appealed the Board’s negative decision. The appeal was dismissed by the Migration Court on 4 February 2014. On an unspecified date, the complainant applied for leave to appeal the Migration Court decision, which was denied by the Migration Court of Appeal on 7 March 2014. 2.4 On 2 October 2014, the complainant married a Ukrainian woman in a Muslim religious ceremony. She also had ongoing asylum proceedings before the Swedish migration authorities. On an unspecified date, the complainant was detained by the Swedish migration authorities. 2.5 On 19 November 2014, the complainant applied for a “suspension and stay of execution” and presented new circumstances before the Swedish Migration Board. He submitted that he had been in contact with his mother in Uzbekistan and was told that his father and brothers had been questioned by the police about his whereabouts and that he was going to be arrested if he returned. The complainant submits that the reason why the police were still looking for him was because he had criticized the President of Uzbekistan and his regime on the Internet. He had posted a critical video on YouTube in support of a person who opposed the President’s regime. On 27 November 2014, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s application and concluded that the information presented by him was not “new”. On an unspecified date, the complainant filed an application to the Migration Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, which was dismissed by the Court on 5 December 2014. 2.6 On 11 December 2014, the complainant submitted that he had lodged an application and a request for interim measures before the European Court of Human Rights on 26 November 2014. On 27 November 2014, the Court rejected the complainant’s request for interim measures, stating that: In addition, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court (…), sitting in a single-judge formation, found that they did not disclose any appearance of violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and declared your application inadmissible. In this connection, the complainant notes that the Court did not examine his case in substance. He also notes that he had approached the Court with his application and request for interim measures before having exhausted domestic remedies, as the Swedish 3