CAT/C/46/D/310/2007 5.10 The complainant emphasizes that the State party has failed to refute that he had violated the restrictions imposed on him by the Syrian authorities. This was also supported by the fact that his father had been interrogated by the security service. His sister Georgette Chahin, his niece Carolin Chamoun, his nephew Josef Chamoun and his uncle Walid Chahin, all Swedish nationals and/or residents, were also interrogated by the security service about his whereabouts during visits to Syria between 2003 and 2007. His nephew was even subjected to ill-treatment during his interrogation. 5.11 For counsel, the complainant’s credibility is not undermined by the fact that he had concealed his Syrian nationality and made contradictory statements about his arrival in Sweden: It is common for asylum seekers and migrants to provide authorities with incorrect information, whether on rational or irrational grounds. What matters is that he is a Syrian citizen and that he was deported to Syria in 1997 and interrogated, tortured and sentenced for a crime against Syrian national interests. 5.12 The complainant rejects the State party’s argument that his scars might as well result from war injuries. The number of medical findings was 16 and that of torture symptoms 6. It was more likely that those sequels resulted from treatment by a state security agency with experience and knowledge in using torture as an interrogation method rather than by one of the Lebanese civil war fractions. During the war, he had once been hit by a bullet causing him a minor flesh wound. 5.13 The complainant maintains that his deportation to Syria in 1997 violated article 3 of the Convention, and that another expulsion would violate the same article. 5.14 On 21 December 2007, the complainant submitted copies of the Swedish passports of his sister and nephew, showing that they had travelled to Syria in 2005 and 2006, respectively. State party’s reply on the complainant’s comments 6.1 On 11 March 2008, the State party replied, reiterating that neither the deportation in 1997 nor the enforcement of the pending expulsion order were or would be in breach of article 3 of the Convention, respectively. There were substantial differences between the complainant’s deportation in 1997 and the Agiza case, where the Committee had found that the Swedish authorities knew or ought to have known that Mr. Agiza, who had been sentenced in absentia and was wanted for alleged involvement in terrorist activities in his country of origin, would run a real and personal risk of being tortured if returned to that country. Unlike Mr. Agiza, the complainant had never applied for asylum in Sweden but was granted a residence permit based on his ties to Sweden. Had he been in need of protection, he would have applied for asylum directly on arrival in Sweden, irrespective of what the police had told him. The State party considers it unlikely that the police would have advised the complainant not to apply for asylum given that he had only been granted a temporary resident permit. Besides, the complainant was represented by a lawyer when he submitted his applications for revocation of the expulsion order in 1993 and 1996. 6.2 The State party emphasizes that, prior to his deportation, the complainant had not provided a wanted notice or any other evidence in support of his claim that he would be arrested and tortured in Syria because of his participation in the Lebanese civil war. In addition to providing the Swedish authorities with contradictory, incorrect and incomplete information about his identity, he had provided the Committee with different unconvincing explanations for those contradictions. 6.3 With regard to the pending expulsion order, the State party reiterates that the complainant has failed to provide any documents in support of his claim that he would still be considered a security risk and thus of special interest to the Syrian authorities. It reiterates that he has served his prison sentence and performed his military service, in 11