CCPR/C/128/D/2984/2017 general need to protect all asylum seekers from that country. The State party submits that the author is the one who has to show that he personally faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant upon return to Rwanda. 4.3 The State party explains that several provisions of the Swedish Aliens Act reflect the same principles as those laid down in article 3 of the Covenant. National authorities are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to appraise the credibility of his or her statements and claims. In that connection, the Migration Agency and the Migration Court have conducted thorough examinations of the complainant’s case. The State party submits that, on 2 June 2014, the Migration Agency held an introductory interview with the author and shared the minutes with the author’s counsel on 16 June 2014. On 11 August 2014, an extensive asylum investigation that lasted for more than three hours took place in the presence of the public counsel, and the minutes were also communicated to the public counsel on 13 August 2014. Both the interview and the investigation were conducted in the presence of interpreters, and the author confirmed that he understood them well. The author was also able to submit written observations on the minutes, and therefore had several opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances to support his claims. For this reason, the State party submits that the migration authorities have had sufficient information, together with the facts and documentation in the case, to ensure that they had a solid basis for making a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment concerning the complainant’s need for protection in Sweden. The State party contends that there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, and that considerable weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities that returning the author to Rwanda would not entail a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 4.4 The State party further argues that the author has not plausibly demonstrated that he is a national of any country other than Rwanda. The State party explains that the author presented two documents with different information: a voting card as an identification document for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a passport from Rwanda. It submits that a Congolese passport was never presented to the authorities of Sweden. The voting card could have been manipulated, which gives it a low probative value. However, the Rwandan passport is genuine and establishes that the author was born in Kinazi Ruhango, Rwanda, on 5 September 1989. The State party also notes that during the Migration Agency’s assessment, the author stated that his date of birth had been changed in his Rwandan passport because no one under 21 would be allowed to apply for a scholarship in the United States. When the author was later asked to explain why someone needed to change his date of birth, he answered that M23 had been severely criticized for recruiting young people. The Migration Agency questioned whether a rebel group such as M23 would be concerned with the age of their recruits or with receiving international criticism on such an issue. The State party therefore concludes that, according to the information and documentation available, the author is from Rwanda. 4.5 Finally, the State party considers that the present communication reveals no violation of the Covenant. The Swedish migration authorities have emphasized that the standard of proof cannot be set too high for claims concerning risk of persecution, as it is rarely possible to present solid evidence in this regard. However, an asylum seeker’s account needs to be deemed plausible and credible, and he or she has to make an honest attempt to substantiate his or her account. 4.6 In this regard, the State party recalls the arguments of the Swedish migration authorities for denying the author’s request for asylum: (a) The documents submitted by the author have low probative value; (b) Some of the submitted documents contain contradictory information; (c) The author submitted articles showing that the M23 rebel group, which was previously considered to have been quashed, was recruiting soldiers in Rwanda and Uganda in early 2014. These articles cannot, however, be considered to substantiate per se that the complainant would face an individual and real threat upon return to Rwanda; 5