CAT/C/39/D/308/2006 Page 9 4.7 The State party concludes by agreeing with the Swedish migration authorities in that the current situation in Azerbaijan does not appear to be such that a general need exists to protect asylum seekers from Azerbaijan. It highlights that this conclusion applies whether or not R. A. is regarded as being half Armenian owing to his mother’s ethnic origin. 4.8 As to the personal risk of torture, the State party underlines the complainant’s assertion before the national authorities that she had no separate reasons for seeking asylum and, therefore, subscribed to her husband’s reasons for seeking asylum. The State party also draws the Committee's attention to the fact that several provisions of the 1989 Aliens Act and the new Aliens Act reflect the same principle that is laid down in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It refers to the Committee's jurisprudence10 that for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he is returned. In addition, the complainant must present an arguable case and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion although it does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. Therefore, it is for the complainant to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account of events.11 4.9 The State party contends that due weight trust be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities, as expressed in their decisions to refuse the residence permits in Sweden for the complainant and her family. Furthermore, it considers that the Migration Board's decision of 22 July 2004 - to which the Aliens Appeals Board refers in its decision of 16 May 2005 - is nuanced and well motivated. 4.10 The State party submits that the main issue at stake before the Committee is the complainant and her husband’s claim that their forced return to Azerbaijan would put them at risk of being arrested and subjected to torture by the Azerbaijani authorities on the account of R. A.’s refusal to carry out or desertion from military service. According to the State party, in assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that they face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention, the credibility that can be attached to their statements is significant. Although the Migration Board and the Aliens Appeals Board in their decisions did not deal with the question of credibility of the complainant and her husband, this does not mean that their statements are altogether undisputed. The State party maintains that there are several circumstances that give reason to question their allegations of ill-treatment. 4.11 The State party firstly notes that R. A.'s statements concerning past harassment and illtreatment are vague and lacking in details. During his first interview at the Migration Board, he stated that he was beaten, hit with weapons and tortured during his military service in 2001, but gave no further details about these incidents. In addition, R. A. has not adduced any evidence in support of his statements of past ill-treatment although it would have been possible for him to obtain a medical certificate from a doctor alter having deserted military service. Furthermore, R. A. has not submitted any documents, for example a detention order, supporting his statement that he would be of particular interest to the authorities and would 10 S.M.R. and M.M.R. v. Sweden, Communication No.103/1998, decision adopted on 5 May 1999, para.9.7. 11 A.H. v. Sweden, Communication No.265/2005, decision adopted on 16 November 2006, para.11.6.