CCPR/C/128/D/2984/2017 rights organization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The report also states that the author had spoken to the police on 20 March and 25 April 2014. As the author did not feel safe in Uganda, he contacted a Kenyan businessman, who was based in Rwanda and who used to work with his father, and requested his help to flee Uganda. The businessman offered the author the opportunity to participate in a training programme in Europe that was arranged for his employees. The author had to go to Rwanda to get a visa, which he did by bus at night. On 26 May 2014, the author travelled to Sweden using the Rwandan passport he had received in 2012. 2.7 On 29 May 2014, the author applied for asylum. On 28 October 2015, the Swedish Immigration Service rejected his asylum request noting that the author had submitted a passport from Rwanda, a voter card from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, police reports from Uganda, and his asylum registration card from Uganda. The Immigration Service noted that its Identity Unit had found that the passport was valid. However, it considered that the registration card and the voter card would be easy to falsify and that they were therefore of low probative value. In addition, it was pointed out that the author did not provide any documents from the Rwandan authorities to support the claim that he had lived as a refugee in Rwanda, and that he also failed to provide a valid justification to indicate how his Rwandan passport had been issued. 2.8 The Immigration Service therefore considered the author to be a Rwandan citizen. It found that the author had not demonstrated that he had returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2012 because he had no stamps in his passport, and found his explanation that he had entered with his passport to Rwanda and went back to Uganda with his student document not credible as no stamps confirmed this movement. The Service further noted that the author had not submitted any police reports related to the threats he had received in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He had not supplied a copy of the letters received, any evidence of the accusations that the authorities of Rwanda and Uganda were colluding with M23, or any contract from the non-governmental organization he claimed to have worked for, despite having been requested to do so. The Immigration Service further noted that he fled to Goma owing to the threats he faced after having refused to join M23. It noted that M23 was based in Goma at the time, and that when requested to explain why he had fled to a place from which the militia was operating, the author could not provide an explanation. It also noted that the author had not been able to explain why he would have been threatened by M23 and the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, apart from having worked as an interpreter. The Immigration Service further noted that the author had, on several occasions, travelled between Rwanda and Uganda without facing any problems with the Rwandan authorities. Finally, the Immigration Service considered that the visa that had made it possible for the author to travel to Sweden was not a means of escaping Rwanda, given that he had chosen to participate in the conference before approaching the Swedish Migration Agency to seek asylum. The Immigration Service considered that the author had not made an honest attempt to substantiate his story. 2.9 On 6 November 2015, the lawyer of the author appealed the decision of the Immigration Service without consulting him. After submitting the appeal, the author and the lawyer met, and his lawyer asked him to request that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Sweden transmit his refugee registration details through their office in Uganda. On 7 March 2016, the lawyer sent the author’s refugee profile from UNHCR in Uganda to the immigration authorities. 2.10 In the appeal, the author explained that when he returned to Goma, the city was under the control of the Congolese army. The author therefore considered it to be safer to return to Goma than to stay in Rwanda. He also explained that it was difficult for him to obtain evidence of his claims pertaining to the events in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2.11 On 10 March 2016, the Migration Court upheld the decision of the Immigration Service. It considered that the documents concerning refugee status that had been submitted by the author, which had been issued in Uganda, could have been manipulated, and that he had failed to substantiate that he was a resident of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Instead, the Migration Court believed he was a resident of Rwanda. They considered that the situation in Rwanda was not sufficiently serious to entitle the author to a residence permit in Sweden. The Migration Court affirmed that the author’s account was not credible, and considered that there was a lack of written evidence concerning his account. The Court 3