CAT/C/39/D/308/2006 Page 6 the Migration Board and that the circumstances invoked before it did not entail a different position. 2.12 On 31 July 2005, the complainant gave birth to a daughter, V. A. An application for asylum was lodged on her behalf. The application was rejected by the Migration Board on 8 September 2005 and the Board ordered that she be expelled with her family. The decision was appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board, which rejected the appeal on 25 October 2005. 2.13 The complainant, her husband and their son filed new applications with the Aliens Appeals Board through another counsel. They stated that the prison conditions in Azerbaijan were very poor and acts of torture occurred. R. A. would be sentenced to seven years' imprisonment due to his refusal to carry out his military service. He suffered from a neurological injury which makes it impossible for him to endure a long prison sentence. The family had nowhere to live and no social network in Azerbaijan. 2.14 On 21 September 2005, the Aliens Appeals Board examined the applications pursuant to the 1989 Aliens Act in its wording before the temporary legislation entered into force. The Board rejected the applications, stating that the circumstances invoked had previously been examined in the case and that the family's argumentation before the Board was not sufficient to warrant a different conclusion. 2.15 On 11 April 2006, the Migration Board examined the case on its own initiative for determination in accordance with the temporary legislation concerning aliens. The Migration Board was of the view that although the complainant’s family had stayed in Sweden for almost three years and that their children were born and being raised in Sweden, the family could not be considered to have developed such close ties with Sweden that residence permits could be granted exclusively on that ground. Furthermore, the Migration Board noted that it is possible to return people to Azerbaijan employing coercive measures. Moreover, the Migration Board did not find it to be of urgent humanitarian interest to grant residence permits. Against this background, and considering that no new circumstances had come to light in the case, as required by the temporary legislation, the Migration Board concluded that the family could not be granted residence permits under that legislation. 2.16 On 12 July 2006 the complainant’s family lodged an application with the Migration Board concerning, inter alia, impediments to enforcement of the expulsion orders and applied for residence permits under Chapter 12, Section 18 of the New Aliens Act. They stated that A. A. had to go to hospital in December 2005 and June 2006 due to pneumonia, which requited antibiotic treatment, and that his medical condition required a continuous follow-up for two years. The Migration Board rejected the applications on 11 August 2006. The complaint 3.1 The complainant does not invoke any specific articles of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Her statements amount, however, to a claim that Sweden would violate article 3 of the Convention in deporting her and her family to Azerbaijan, since there is a real risk that her husband would be subjected to torture. She claims that according to the Azerbaijani Constitution, he would be sentenced to a minimum of 7 years’ imprisonment for deserting military service and tortured in detention because he is half Armenian. She additionally claims that prison conditions in Azerbaijan are poor and that torture is commonly practiced. Her husband, who