CAT/C/39/D/308/2006 Page 11 caused by the car accident and he has not submitted a medical certificate in this respect. In the State party’s view, R. A.'s behaviour before the Migration Board indicates that it should not be excluded that he has consciously obstructed and rendered the asylum investigation more difficult. His behaviour gives rise to doubts as to the truth of his statements and claims before the Swedish migration authorities and before the Committee. 4.15 The State party submits that there is no evidence to support that R. A. was beaten and tortured during military service on account of his ethnic origin or for any other reason. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that, if returned to Azerbaijan, he would be sentenced to long-term imprisonment for having deserted military service and that he will be mistreated in prison due to his ethnic origin or for any other reason. Against this background, the complainant and her husband have not substantiated that R. A. would attract any particular attention from the Azerbaijani authorities upon return to his country of origin. Accordingly, the State party maintains that they have not shown substantial grounds for believing that they will run a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 if deported to Azerbaijan. 4.16 To conclude, the State party is of the view that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant and her husband do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Given Azerbaijan’s participation in the Convention against Torture and the fact that in the past the Committee has taken note of the State party’s argument that Azerbaijan has made some progress to improve the human rights situation since it joined the Council of Europe, enforcement of the expulsion orders would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. In so far as the complainant and her husband’s claims under article 3 fail to rise to the basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible for being manifestly unfounded. 4.17 The complainant and her husband do not seem to claim that an enforcement of the expulsion orders would entail a violation of article 16 of the Convention due to R. A.'s medical condition. However, the State party adds that, in its opinion, the case does not reveal any violation of the Convention in this regard. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 11 July 2007, the complainant reiterates the events that lead to her and her husband’s departure from Azerbaijan. She adds that R. A. was wanted by military authorities and that he could not ask for asylum in the Russian Federation because of the bilateral extradition agreement between Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation. She restates that her husband fears to be killed if returned to Azerbaijan, since ‘many boys die’ while in the Azerbaijani military, hundreds of them are being beaten up and tortured. Some have escaped to Armenia. 5.2 The complainant confirms that she did not have separate reasons to seek asylum when she arrived in Sweden with her husband in 2003 but submits that she does have reasons to seek asylum now after having lived in Sweden for four years. She has two children born in Sweden, who started going to Swedish kindergarten in November 2005 and December 2006, respectively, and who are well integrated into the Swedish society. She challenges the conclusion of the Migration Board of 11 April 2006 that her son, who was two years and four months old at that time, did not develop close ties to Sweden and questions how one could