CAT/C/44/D/322/2007 4.2 The State party concedes that the complaint may raise issues under article 16 of the Convention. 3 However, it recalls the Committee’s prior jurisprudence that the aggravation of the condition of an individual’s physical or mental health by virtue of a deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16. 4 It maintains that no such factors have been revealed by the complainants in their case. Accordingly, the complaint, as far as it relates to article 16, should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae. If the Committee were to find that article 16 applies to the issue of the implementation of the complainants’ expulsion, the State party maintains that their complaint fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. The complaint is considered manifestly unfounded in this respect too. 4.3 On the merits, the State party notes that there have been positive developments towards democracy and stability in the DRC. In particular, the first democratic election in 46 years was held in 2006. The DRC has ratified most major international human rights instruments. While the State party concedes that human rights abuses are still commonly reported in the country, they happen mostly in areas not controlled by the Government, primarily in the eastern parts of the country. The State party thus maintains that the current situation in the DRC does not appear to be such that a general need to protect asylum seekers from that country exists. 4.4 As for the personal risk of the complainants of being subjected to torture in the DRC, the State party notes that the national authority conducting the asylum interview is in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to estimate the credibility of his or her claims. In the present case, the asylum interview lasted two hours and the Migration Board thus had sufficient information, which, taken together with the facts and documentation in the case file, ensured that it had a solid basis for its assessment of the complainants’ need for protection in Sweden. The State party relies on the decisions of the Migration Board and the Migration Court and on the reasoning set out in their respective decisions. 4.5 Considering the complainants’ claim that their expulsion would constitute a violation of the Convention because of the hostilities in the DRC, the State party disputes that this claim has been substantiated. While the complainants submit that they witnessed terrible human rights abuses, they have not been assaulted or abused themselves. Accordingly, their statements about risks of torture are general in nature and based only on the general country situation. Nothing in these statements demonstrates that there is any foreseeable, real and personal risk of the complainants being subjected to torture. Furthermore, the State party notes that the complainants will not be returned to the eastern parts of the DRC, but to the province of Equateur in the western parts of the country where the security and human rights situation are far better. It recalls that the complainants were born in that province and were registered as living there when leaving the country. While the complainants had moved to Goma before leaving the country, this was only for a short period of time. The complainants can avoid any alleged risk of torture due to possible hostilities in the eastern part of the DRC by moving back to the Equateur province. 3 See for instance Communication No. 220/2002, R.D. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 2 May 2005; and Communication No. 221/2002, M.M.K. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 3 May 2005. 4 See for instance Communication No. 49/1996, S.V. v. Canada, Views adopted on 15 May 2001, para.9.9; Communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, para.6.5; Communication No. 220/2002, R.D. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 2 May 2005, para.7.2; and Communication No. 221/2002, M.M.K. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 3 May 2005, para.7.3. 5