CAT/C/58/D/627/2014 violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10 Therefore, the State party contends that the removal of the complainant to Bangladesh would only entail a breach of the Convention if he could show that he would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3. However, the complainant has failed to do so. 4.9 The State party adds that several provisions in the Swedish Aliens Act reflect the same principles as those laid down in article 3 of the Convention. The Swedish migration authorities apply the same test when examining asylum applications as that applied by the Committee when examining individual complaints under article 3 of the Convention. The fact that such a test has been applied in the present case is shown by the reference of the Swedish authorities in their decisions relating to the present case to sections 1, 2 and 2 (a) of chapter 4 of the Aliens Act. Furthermore, according to sections 1-3 of chapter 12 of the Aliens Act, expulsion may never be enforced to a country where there are reasonable grounds to assume that the alien would be in danger of being subjected, inter alia, to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or to a country where the alien is not protected from being sent to a country where he would be in such danger. 4.10 The State party adds that its national authorities are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by asylum seekers and to appraise its credibility. In the present case, the Migration Agency (formerly the Migration Board) thoroughly examined the complainant’s case and conducted three interviews before rejecting the application. The interviews were conducted through an interpreter, whom the complainant confirmed that he understood well. During the asylum interview, lasting for two and a half hours, the complainant’s legal counsel was also present. The purpose of the interviews was to give the complainant an opportunity to explain the reasons for his need for protection orally and all the facts he considered to be of relevance. After the asylum interview, the complainant stated that he believed he had presented all his reasons for seeking asylum. Furthermore, the complainant’s legal counsel was invited to submit observations and comments on the minutes from the interview. Accordingly, the State party maintains that the complainant has had several opportunities to explain all relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claim and to argue his case, both orally and in writing. Thus, it must be considered that the Migration Agency and the Migration Court had sufficient information, together with the facts and documentation in the case, to ensure that they had a solid basis for making a wellinformed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment of the complainant’s need of protection. 4.11 In that connection, the State party recalls that the Committee repeatedly holds that it is not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body and that considerable weight will be given to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned.11 Moreover, in its case law, the Committee also reiterates 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. 12 The State party contends, in the light of the above and given that the Migration Agency and the Migration Court are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice, that there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the proceedings was arbitrary or amounting to a denial of justice. 10 11 12 6 See Human Rights Committee communication No. 2149/2012, M.I. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 14 August 2013, para. 4.5. See the Committee’s general comment No. 1, para. 9, and, for example, communication No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 22 November 2006, para. 8.6. See, for example, communication No. 219/2002, G.K. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 7 May 2003, para. 6.12.