CAT/C/48/D/424/2010 underestimated his involvement in the opposition party. M.Z.A. said that he was convinced that if he was sent back to Azerbaijan, he would be arrested and subjected to serious harassment and assaults. On 18 April 2005, the Aliens Appeals Board rejected M.Z.A.’s appeal and, instead, agreed with the earlier findings of the Migration Board. 4.6 The State party contends that M.Z.A. and his wife and daughter submitted another application for a residence permit to the Aliens Appeals Board. On 23 April 2005, the Aliens Appeals Board rejected the application, stating that no new circumstances had been invoked by the complainant. M.Z.A. further submitted a number of applications for a residence permit, which were all rejected. The last decision was issued on 29 April 2010 by the Migration Court of Appeal, which triggered an order to expel M.Z.A. to Azerbaijan. 4.7 The State party acknowledges that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies, but argues that that the complaint is inadmissible as it is manifestly illfounded. If the Committee considers the complaint admissible, the State party denies that it would violate the Convention by deporting the complainant back to Azerbaijan. 4.8 The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence 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. The State party argues that additional grounds must exist to show that the individual would be personally at risk.2 Therefore, the State party submits, the Committee should consider both the general situation with human rights in Azerbaijan and the personal risk of the complainant being subjected to torture upon his return. 4.9 The State party further submits that Azerbaijan has signed all important United Nations conventions, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Since 2006 Azerbaijan has been a member of the Human Rights Council. The State party refers to several reports,3 and claims that they all arrive at the same conclusion: that the mere membership or other involvement in an opposition party in Azerbaijan does not necessarily mean that a person will be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. 4.10 The State party also argues that the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured if returned to the country of his origin.4 The State party also submits that according to general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22,5 it is up to the complainant to 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. 4.11 The State party submits that great weight must be attached to the decisions of the Swedish migration authorities. The State party submits that the complainant has presented 2 3 4 5 The State party refers to communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, “2007 country report on human rights: Azerbaijan”; United States Department of State, “2009 human rights report: Azerbaijan”; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2010 (New York, 2010); “Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his visit to Azerbaijan 1-5 March 2010” (29 June 2010). The State party refers to communication No. 103/1998, S.M.R. and M.M.R. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 5 May 1999, para. 9.7. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44), annex IX. 5