CAT/C/41/D/332/2007 Page 6 the State party’s argument that Azerbaijan had made progress in order to improve the human rights situation since it joined the Council of Europe.1 4.6 The State party maintains that the complainant’s state of health (alleged post- traumatic stress disorder) does not constitute sufficient grounds for being granted asylum in Sweden. In addition, it is not unlikely that the complainant’s scars were at least partly caused by a car accident he was involved in as a child. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 15 September 2008, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations. He emphasizes that he was not only a member of Musavat, but that he was employed by it and had close contacts with one of the party’s vice presidents. 5.2 The complainant insists that he was not represented by counsel during the first interview before the Migration Board on 25 January 2005. He had considerable and significant difficulties in understanding the interpreters, and it is thus quite normal that misunderstandings occurred. 5.3 There is a high risk of torture in Azerbaijan, and his fear is well-founded, real and present, as the complainant reneged his assignment to work undercover for the authorities and left the country during an ongoing criminal investigation. The previous personal history of severe physical abuse and torture by the Azeri authorities establishes a situation of personal risk. 5.4 The report requested by the Swedish consulate in Baku contains several inaccuracies. It does not describe how the work was carried out, and it is extremely short. Low evidentiary value should be attached to this report. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State party’s acknowledgment that domestic remedies have been exhausted and thus finds that the complainant has complied with the requirements in article 22, paragraph 5 (b). 6.4 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, on the basis that it fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required 1 A.H. v. Sweden, 265/2005, para 11.7 (30 November 2006).