CAT/C/58/D/616/2014 4.8 The State party submits that several provisions of the Aliens Act reflect the principles contained in article 3 of the Convention and, therefore, that the State party authorities apply the same kind of test when considering asylum applications. According to sections 1-3 of chapter 12 of the Aliens Act, a person seeking asylum cannot be returned to a country where there are reasonable grounds to assume that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to the death penalty, to corporal punishment, to torture or to other degrading treatment or punishment. 4.9 When the complainant applied for asylum, the Migration Board conducted multiple individual interviews with him to enable him to submit the reasons for his need for protection and to explain all relevant facts. During those interviews, the complainant was represented by counsel. During the initial interview on 28 October 2012, the complainant stated that he was satisfied with his counsel. Moreover, the complainant was able to submit written briefs in addition to oral interviews. The State party therefore suggests that its authorities had enough information to make “a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment” of the complainant’s need for protection. 4.10 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, in which the Committee stated that, in exercising its jurisdiction, considerable weight would be given to findings of facts made by organs of the State party concerned. The State party also refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence.8 The Migration Board and the Migration Court are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice. There is no reason therefore to conclude that the examination by the national authorities was inadequate or that the outcome of the examination was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. In addition, absent such arbitrariness or denial of justice, the State party submits that “great weight must be attached” to the findings of its authorities. 4.11 The State party also submits that the complainant provided contradictory statements to the migration authorities. For example, to prove his identity, the complainant provided only his driver’s licence, not his passport. The complainant stated that his passport was in the Russian Federation and that he could not contact his family to have it delivered to him. The Migration Board, however, considers that the complainant did not demonstrate that his “most recent habitual residence” was in Chechnya. 4.12 Furthermore, during the interviews and hearings, the complainant had difficulty remembering exact facts, dates and details. He explained that the difficulty was caused by the great anguish he felt as a result of his injuries. That explanation did not seem plausible, however, since the complainant seemed to lack knowledge about major events in his life related to his asylum claim. The migration authorities also found it incredible that the complainant was able to escape from prison because the gate was left unlocked. 4.13 Additionally, the complainant claimed during his first interview that his two cousins were forced to join the rebels but during the second interview stated that they joined the rebels voluntarily.9 The complainant never claimed that he was questioned by the Russian authorities specifically regarding those cousins. In the light of these facts, it is not clear why the complainant would be of much interest to the Russian law enforcement authorities. 4.14 The complainant told the migration authorities that that after his marriage he and his wife moved to Grozny. He was then arrested in 2010, at a marketplace in Grozny, and taken 8 9 4 See communication No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 22 November 2006, para. 8.6. In his submission to the Committee, the complainant again states that his cousins were forced to join the rebels.