CAT/C/46/D/310/2007 of the soles of his feet (“falaka”) during interrogations by the Syrian security service in 1997 on the suspicion that he had fought against the Syrian forces during the Lebanese civil war; (b) convicted of membership in a terrorist group; and (c) that he had violated three of the four restrictions imposed on him. He claimed that he would face a risk of torture if returned to Syria, where he would be considered a security risk owing to his past activities in Lebanon and the fact that he had served a prison sentence for having committed a crime against the State. He would be detained and interrogated about his activities abroad. In support of his claim, he presented a copy of the judgment of the Supreme State Security Court, as well as a forensic medical report dated 7 September 2004 (examination on 26 August 2004) and a psychiatric report dated 15 September 2004 (examination on 25 August 2004), issued by experts of the Centre for Treatment of Crisis and Trauma Victims in Stockholm. The forensic medical report confirms that several scar formations on his body are consistent with the complainant’s description of his torture. The psychiatric report states that it is very likely that he suffers from a post-traumatic stress syndrome as a consequence of his experience of war and torture and, possibly, from a personality disorder. The complainant concluded that his risk of being subjected to torture constitutes an absolute impediment to his expulsion to Syria under the Swedish Aliens Act and articles 3 of the Convention and of the European Convention for Human Rights. 2.17 The Ministry of Justice sent the copy of the Syrian judgment and other documents to the Swedish Embassy in Damascus to verify their authenticity. On 16 March 2005, the Embassy confirmed that the judgment was authentic but not that he was prohibited from leaving Syria. 2.18 On 12 April 2005, counsel for the complainant commented on the information received from the Embassy, questioning its source and reliability. 2.19 On 11 October 2005, the Migration Board, at the request of the Ministry of Justice, submitted an opinion on the case. Based on the Swedish Embassy’s advice that no restrictions had been imposed on the complainant, the Board concluded that he would not face a risk of torture upon return to Syria. Therefore, there were no impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order. 2.20 In a submission to the Government dated 9 November 2005, the complainant maintained that he had been prohibited to leave his home town, as well as Syria, and that he had been required to regularly report to the authorities. He argued that the imposition of restrictions on him was plausible in light of the political nature of the crime for which he had been convicted, and reiterated that it was unclear how any information to the contrary had been obtained by the Embassy. 2.21 On 21 June 2006, the Government rejected the complainant’s application, concluding that there were no special grounds for revoking the expulsion order against him. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his deportation to Syria in 1997 constituted a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. Despite the fact that his torture in Syria was foreseeable, as it was known that he had been engaged in the Lebanese Forces, that Syria considered such engagement as treason, and that torture was common in Syria according to international human rights reports, particularly in cases related to national security, the State party had summarily rejected his applications only to return him to Syria. His subjection to torture on return to Syria had been confirmed by two medical and psychiatric expert reports, had not been refuted by the State party, and must be attributed to the State party, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention. 5