CAT/C/39/D/308/2006 Page 5 medical condition at the time of his discharge and included a physician’s conclusion that that the neuropsychological assessment gave no indication of remaining cognitive disturbance. 2.8 On 11 January 2004, the complainant gave birth to a son, A. A. An application for asylum was lodged on his behalf. His application was considered by the Migration Board jointly with his parents' appeal. 2.9 On 22 July 2004, the Migration Board rejected the family's applications for residence permits, work permits, declarations of refugee status and travel documents and ordered that they be expelled to their country of origin. As to whether the complainant and her family should be regarded as refugees or otherwise in need of protection pursuant to Chapter 3, Sections 23 of the 1989 Aliens Act, the Migration Board noted, inter alia, that Azerbaijan became a member of the Council of Europe in 2001 and the Azerbaijani authorities pledged to initiate a number of legal reforms. There was a truce between Azerbaijan and Armenia since 1994 and the Azerbaijani constitution guarantees the protection of equal rights for all Azerbaijani citizens. There is an Armenian minority residing in the country, mostly comprised of the Armenian-Azerbaijani families. Couples where one of the spouses is of Armenian origin can usually lead ordinary lives in Baku, especially if the woman is of Armenian origin. Acts of discrimination in working life and harassment at schools and workplaces have been reported, but there is no discrimination or persecution sanctioned by the government. Children of mixed marriages have the right to choose, at the age of 16, which ethnic group they wish to belong to. 2.10 Without questioning the incidents of assault that R. A. said he had been subjected to during his military service, the Migration Board found that the general situation in Azerbaijan did not constitute grounds for granting asylum in Sweden. The Migration Board considered that the incidents could not be imputed to the Azerbaijani authorities, but should be viewed as criminal acts performed by certain individuals, and that R. A. had not established a probability that Azerbaijani authorities had lacked the will or the capability to protect him from the alleged assaults. Moreover, the Board noted that refusal to carry out one's military service could, if punishment by imprisonment were imposed, lead to a maximum of seven years' imprisonment. The Migration Board found that refusal to carry out one's military service or deserting military service does not normally constitute grounds for granting a residence permit and that a permit can only be granted if the summoned person risks a disproportionately harsh punishment. Without passing judgment on the truth of the information provided by the complainant and her husband, the Migration Board did not find support for the conclusion that R. A. and his family, if returned to Azerbaijan, would risk persecution or such an unreasonable punishment owing to, inter alia, race and nationality, that they were to be regarded as refugees or otherwise in need of protection. As to whether the complainant’s family should be granted a residence permit for humanitarian reasons, the Migration Board found that the family's physical and mental condition was not severe enough to constitute grounds for granting a residence permit. 2.11 Counsel assigned to the complainant and her husband appealed the Migration Board's decision. In support of the appeal, they stated, that the Migration Board has misjudged the general situation in Azerbaijan. If returned to Azerbaijan, R. A. would be arrested and imprisoned due to his refusal to carry out his military service. It is probable that he would die in prison. R. A. still suffers from the after-effects of the car accident, he is easily irritated and it is difficult for the complainant to take care of their son on her own. The Aliens Appeals Board rejected the appeal on 16 May 2005, stating that it shared the conclusions reached by