CAT/C/63/D/744/2016 Advance unedited version demonstrate that the situation in Iraq is such that there is a general need of protection for asylum seekers from that country. Further, the current lack of respect for human rights in Iraq cannot in itself be sufficient to conclude that the complainant’s forced return to Iraq would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the complainant has to show the he personally would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention upon return to Iraq. 4.10 As to the complainant’s allegation that he would run a personal risk of being subjected to torture in Iraq, the State party submits that the Swedish migration authorities apply the same test in assessing the risk of being subjected to torture when considering an asylum application under the Swedish Aliens Act, as the Committee applies when examining a communication under the Convention. The State party adds that the expulsion of an alien may never be enforced to a country where there is fair reason to assume that the person would be in danger of receiving the death penalty or being subjected to corporal punishment, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, or to a country in which he or she would be in such danger. Moreover, the national authorities are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to appraise his or her statements and claims. In the present case, the Migration Agency and the Migration Court conducted thorough examinations of the complainant’s case. The extensive interviews with the complainant undertaken by the Migration Agency and the oral hearings held by the Migration Court were conducted in the presence of his legal counsel and an interpreter, whom the complainant confirmed that he understood well. The complainant had several opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claim and to argue his case, orally as well as in writing, before the Migration Agency and the Migration Court. The Migration Agency and the Migration Court therefore had sufficient information, facts and documentation in the case, to ensure that they had a solid basis for making a transparent and reasonable risk assessment of the complainant’s need for protection in Sweden. 4.11 The State party further argues that the Committee is not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body and that considerable weight should be given to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned. 24 By referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, it submits that it is for the courts of the States parties to the Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 25 The State party contends that such allegations of arbitrariness or denial of justice do not apply to the outcome of the domestic proceedings in the present case. Accordingly, the State party considers that great weight must be attached to the opinions of the national migration authorities, as expressed in their decisions ordering the expulsion of the complainant to Iraq. The State party concludes that the return of the complainant to Iraq would not amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.12 The State party reiterates the position of the migration authorities, that the complainant has not plausibly demonstrated his identity or citizenship and has also not made sufficient efforts to obtain documents to support his identity and plausibly demonstrate that he is a citizen of Iran, that he is an Iranian refugee in Iraq registered by the UNHCR or, alternatively, that he is a citizen of Iraq. It further recalls that, according to 24 25 8 http://lifos.migrationsverket.se/dokument?documentSummaryId=33477); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2017 – Iraq, 12 January 2017 (https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/countrychapters/iraq); UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance – Iran: Kurds and Kurdish political groups, July 2016 (http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/578f67c34.pdf); and Danmark, Udlændingestyrelsen, Iranian Kurds; On Conditions for Iranian Kurdish Parties in Iran and KRI, Activities in the Kurdish Area of Iran, Conditions in Border Area and Situation of Returnees from KRI to Iran; 30 May to 9 June 2013, 30 September 2013 (https://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/D82120CB-3D78-4992-AB574916C4722869/0/fact_finding_iranian_kurds_2013.pdf). See, for example, N.Z.S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/37/D/277/2005), para. 8.6, and S.K. and others v. Sweden (CAT/C/54/D/550/2013), para. 7.4. See, for example, G.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/30/D/219/2002), para. 6.12.