CAT/C/41/D/332/2007 Page 4 2.8 The complainant continued to give information about the Musavat party to the authorities. On 28 September 2004, Mr. S. I., a member of Musavat party met with the complainant and threatened to kill the complainant and his family because of these spying activities. 2.9 On 4 January 2005, the complainant arrived in Sweden with his family, and asked for asylum. On 26 January 2005, a preliminary interview was conducted, during which the complainant described his political activity, how he was arrested, his treatment in prison and how he left Azerbaijan. 2.10 On 9 June 2005, a second interview was held. The complainant was asked to provide complementary details to the circumstances he had described in the first interview. He described his activities in the Musavat party, and argued that he had been imprisoned without being convicted. During the interview the complainant was represented by a lawyer. 2.11 On 8 July 2005, the Migration Board rejected the complainant’s asylum application. Although the Migration Board acknowledged that police brutality and random arrests were common in Azerbaijan, it considered it unlikely that the complainant was of such interest to the authorities after only a short period of activity within the party, and that he did not have a prominent role. 2.12 His lawyer appealed the decision to the former Aliens Appeals Board, which, on 20 October 2005, rejected the complainant’s application. The Aliens Appeals Board argued that the complainant had not made out that he was of such interest to the authorities that he would risk arrest if returned to Azerbaijan. It also concluded that the complainant’s family should not be granted a permanent residence permit under Chapter 3 Section 3 of the 1989 Aliens Act. 2.13 In accordance with the interim legislation then applicable, the Migration Board considered the complainant’s and his family’s case according to Chapter 2, Section 5b of the 1989 Aliens Act. On 3 September 2006, it rejected the application, referring to the following facts: a) the family had not resided in Sweden for the period of time required to obtain a residence permit; b) the applicants had not submitted any new reasons about their need for protection. 2.14 After the Migration Board’s decision, the complainant and his family claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order. On 25 October 2006, the Migration Board concluded that no new circumstances had been advanced and that no obstacle existed against the execution of the expulsion order under Chapter 12, Section 18 of the 2005 Aliens Act. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture by Sweden if he and his family are to be deported to Azerbaijan in the light of the treatment suffered by him during his detention in Azerbaijan and continuing interest in him by the authorities.