CAT/C/48/D/424/2010 application and that the new circumstances he presented were insufficient to grant him asylum in Sweden as a refugee. The Court decided to make the complainant subject to exclusion orders and as a result he was taken into custody on 18 January 2010. The complainant sought leave to appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal. On 29 April 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that his forcible deportation to Azerbaijan by Sweden would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. He will be exposed to a real risk of arrest, detention and torture in case of return. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 30 December 2010, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and merits. It presented detailed information on the pertinent Swedish asylum legislation and further submitted the following information concerning the facts of the complainant’s case, based primarily on the case files of the Swedish Migration Board and the migration courts. The complainant’s application for asylum has been examined in several sets of proceedings, including under the 1989 Aliens Act, the temporary amendments to the 1989 Aliens Act, and the 2005 Aliens Act, as described in detail below. 4.2 The State party submits that M.Z.A. was interviewed on 21 January 2004 by the Migration Board. M.Z.A. stated that he had no identity documents because during his journey to Sweden, he lost his bag which contained his passport. M.Z.A. did have a birth certificate and a teacher’s diploma. He claimed to be a member of the AMIP party. As a member of the party, M.Z.A. participated in demonstrations and meetings. He could not find employment due to his membership in AMIP. He had recently purchased a shop for US$ 16,000, but did not get the shop, and did not get his money back. M.Z.A. and his family concluded he should travel to Europe, in order to “find a solution there”. M.Z.A. decided to do just that, “in order to take his responsibility as a father”. 4.3 The State party claims that on 2 April 2004 M.Z.A. submitted a statement through his legal aid counsel to the Migration Board. In that statement, M.Z.A. claimed that he left Azerbaijan because of his involvement with AMIP and his position as a party chairman in the area where he resided. M.Z.A. claimed to have participated in a number of demonstrations, including a large demonstration on 15 and 16 October 2003. M.Z.A. claimed that thanks to his mother-in-law, who worked as a prosecutor and had some contacts with the police, he was taken away from the demonstration and avoided being battered and arrested. After this, M.Z.A. went into hiding. In January 2004, he learned from his wife and his mother-in-law that he was wanted by the police. M.Z.A. also claimed that the Azerbaijani mafia was involved in his case and supported the police’s search efforts. M.Z.A. submitted a copy of his identity card and a membership card of the opposition party. 4.4 The State party submits that on 13 May 2004, the Migration Board rejected M.Z.A.’s application for the residence and work permit. The Migration Board rejected the complainant’s application because, inter alia, he had not referred to any persecution before the October 2003 demonstration. The Board also decided that it was not likely that M.Z.A. would be of any interest to the police in Azerbaijan due to his insignificant political involvement. 4.5 The State party submits that on 23 May 2004, the complainant appealed the Migration Board’s decision to the Aliens Appeals Board. The complainant added to his previous claims that it was actually his father-in-law who worked as a prosecutor, and not his mother-in-law, as submitted previously. M.Z.A. also claimed that the Migration Board 4