CAT/C/48/D/424/2010 certain contradictory statements. Inter alia, the complainant first submitted that it was his mother-in-law who worked as a prosecutor, only to claim later that it was his father-in-law who was a prosecutor. Additionally, the complainant provided different reasons for leaving Azerbaijan. First, he stated that he was not able to obtain employment due to his political activities, and that he did not want his brothers to support him. After two months he changed his story, and claimed that he was forced to leave Azerbaijan because he was sought by the police. 4.12 The State party submits that the complainant has not submitted any evidence that he had been wanted for or accused of any crimes in Azerbaijan. In addition, M.Z.A. has not claimed to have been arrested or interrogated while in Azerbaijan. The complainant has provided very vague information concerning the alleged threats against him. The State party submits that there is no evidence or any other reason to believe that the complainant would be subjected to torture if returned to Azerbaijan. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 18 March 2011, the complainant commented on the State party’s submission of 30 December 2010. He reiterates his position that it was his father-in-law who helped him to avoid being arrested. Because of this, the complainant had to escape from Azerbaijan. This decision was made in consultation with his father-in-law, who, according to the complainant, confirmed that he was wanted by the police. 5.2 The complainant further reiterates that he was politically active as a member of the AMIP party in Azerbaijan, and became active with the Musavat party while in Sweden. He submits that his political beliefs are well known to the authorities in Azerbaijan. The complainant claims he has submitted extensive written evidence to prove his political beliefs and activities. 5.3 The complainant further argues that once he has provided a certain level of detail and information, the burden of proof then shifts to the State party.6 In order to further verify his claims, the complainant submits a certificate from the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan. The certificate provides that the complainant has written more than 150 comments in the Azadliq newspaper and appeared in several online videos. The complainant submits that despite some improvements with the human rights situation in Azerbaijan, there still exists a pattern of gross, flagrant and mass violations. 5.4 The complainant claims that he has provided sufficient information and details about his need for asylum and protection in Sweden or elsewhere outside of Azerbaijan. He further argues that his story is confirmed by the written evidence that he has presented. The complainant reiterates that if he is returned to Azerbaijan, he will be arrested for his political beliefs, and tortured. State party’s further observations 6.1 By note verbale of 7 November 2011, the State party submitted its further observations, stating that while the situation in Azerbaijan as regards freedom of expression, freedom of press and freedom of assembly remains problematic, it does not change the assessment of the complainant’s need for protection. The State party disputes that the complainant provided sufficient information for the burden to shift to the State party. 6 6 The complainant refers to communication No. 149/1999, A.S. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 24 November 2000.