CAT/C/49/D/425/2010 returned to Algeria is insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and the communication is manifestly ill-founded, and should therefore be declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 1 4.6 On the merits, the State party submits that it does not wish to underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Algeria, considering President Bouteflika’s re-election in 2009, the absence of fair trials for persons suspected of terrorism, the absence of investigations into allegations of torture and ill-treatment, the practice of admitting confessions obtained under duress, and the break-up of protests despite the lifting of the state of emergency in February 2011.2 However, these are not of themselves sufficient to establish that the complainant’s deportation to Algeria would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The complainant needs to show that he would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention. On the complainant’s personal risk of being subjected to torture in Algeria, the State party submits that the Migration Board made its decision after having held two interviews with him and that the Migration Court held an oral hearing before delivering its decision. It also notes that the domestic legislation contains the same principles as the Convention and that therefore its migration authorities apply the same test as the Committee to establish the foreseeable, real and personal risk of the complainant. It therefore underlines that great weight must be given to the appreciation of the facts on the ground by the State party’s migration authorities. 4.7 The State party submits that the complainant’s claim before the Committee rests on the same grounds and evidence as the one before the State party’s authorities. However, in addition thereto, the complainant has submitted additional explanations for the inconsistencies in his accounts. The State party submits that there are several reasons to question the veracity of the complainant’s claims. It notes that his allegation that he pretended to be separated from his wife to save her from harassment had not been presented previously and is in contradiction with his previous claim that in February 2008 he and his wife had marital problems, which were resolved after the complainant’s visa application to Sweden. It further underlines that the complainant’s argument that it would be illogical to have a passport replaced in which there was a valid Egyptian residence permit runs counter to his previous statement that the residence permit was no longer valid as he had been outside of Egypt for more than six months. This undermines the complainant’s credibility with respect to the claim that his passport was confiscated by the police. The State party further notes that stamps in the complainant’s passport show that he was able to leave and re-enter Algeria without problems. It notes that the complainant has not explained how he was able to leave and re-enter Algeria before he allegedly paid a bribe to leave the country on 27 March 2008. Furthermore, the complainant admitted that he was not charged with any crime. In the event of his passport having been confiscated to prevent him from leaving the country, it seems unlikely that he could have done so without this coming to the attention of the security services or the police. A number of other factors do not make sense, such as that the complainant still remained in Algeria after allegedly having been tortured in 2005; he had several opportunities to leave the country, either to Egypt, the place of residence of his mother and where he had a residence permit, or to the Schengen 1 2 6 See communication No. 216/2002, H.I.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2003, para. 6.2. See for example Amnesty International’s annual report on Algeria for 2010; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2010 and World Report 2011; United States Department of State, “Country reports on human rights practices – Algeria” (11 March 2010); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, Algeria: Country of Origin Information Report (14 March 2011); the report on human rights in Algeria for 2007, published by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and the United Kingdom, Home Office, “Operational guidance note: Algeria” (22 May 2006).