CAT/C/39/D/308/2006 Page 7 suffered brain haemorrhage and partial paralysis of his hand, would not survive seven years in prison. 3.2 She claims in her own name and on behalf of her children that they would not be able to live in Azerbaijan alone, while her husband was in prison, since the family does not have a place to live, no money for A. A.’s medical treatment and no support. In November 2005, the Swedish government adopted Temporary Aliens Act for families with children who lived in Sweden for long time. In April 2006, the Migration Board concluded that A. A., who at that time was two years and four months old, did not develop close ties to Sweden. The complainant claims that should he had been 3 years old at that time, the family would have been permitted to stay in Sweden. She states that A. A. goes to the Swedish kindergarten, speaks only Swedish language and, in addition, he was diagnosed with asthma in July 2006 and would require regular medical supervision for several years. The State party’s admissibility and merits observations 4.1 On 9 May 2007, the State party acknowledges that the case of the complainant and her husband had been assessed mainly under the old 1989 Aliens Act, which was replaced by the 2005 Aliens Act,2 and that domestic remedies were exhausted. The State party maintains that the assertion of the complainant and her husband that they are at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of the Convention fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. It accordingly submits that the communication is manifestly unfounded and, thus, inadmissible pursuant to article 22, paragraph 2 of the Convention. On the merits, the State party contends that the communication reveals no violation of the Convention. 4.2 On the merits, the State party refers to the Committee's jurisprudence3 that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country. For a violation of article 3 of the Convention to be established, additional grounds must exist to show that the individual would be personally at risk. 4.3 The State party recalls that Azerbaijan was a party to the Convention against Torture since 1996 and it recognised the competence of the Committee to deal with individual communications. It is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Optional Protocol thereto and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Azerbaijan was a member of the Council of Europe since January 2001 and is a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. By becoming a member, Azerbaijan undertook to introduce reforms to strengthen respect for democracy and human rights. The Council of Europe monitored the situation for some time to ensure that progress is being made. The State party lists the following positive developments: (a) a number of persons defined by the Council of Europe as political prisoners have been released by Azerbaijan in a series of 2 2005 Aliens Act entered into force on 31 March 2006. Between 15 November 2005 and 31 March 2006, the 1989 Aliens Act with certain temporary amendments remained in force. 3 Reference is made to S.L. v. Sweden, Communication No.150/1999, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para.6.3 and E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, Communication No.213/2002, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para.8.3.