CAT/C/47/D/374/2009 4.18 The complainants have also invoked a document issued by the UNHCR Office in Baku which summarizes the submission made by S.M. on 24 August 2004 after the family had been sent back to Azerbaijan. S.M. stated that he and his family were detained and questioned for two days at the airport. They were allowed to leave the airport on account of his and his daughter's deteriorating health. He further submitted that he and his wife were to report for questioning on a certain date and that they had been questioned for one hour and threatened with imprisonment. S.M. also stated that his brother, who lived with their Armenian mother in Baku, did not experience similar difficulties due to his ethnicity. The document makes no reference to the ill-treatment allegedly suffered by S.M. during interrogation at the airport. Furthermore, according to the above-mentioned document, S.M. stated that he and his family were held at the airport by security forces for two days, while he had claimed before the Swedish authorities that his detention lasted for four or five days. These inconsistencies weaken the general credibility of the complainants' submissions about their experience after being deported to Azerbaijan. Moreover, it seems very contradictory that S.M.'s brother, who apparently lives with their Armenian mother, has not experienced any difficulties due to his ethnicity. 4.19 The complainants have also been inconsistent about what occurred subsequent to S.M.'s stay in hospital in September 2004. S.M. and H.M. stated separately in writing that they were questioned a few days before they left the country. Then they both stated separately that after discharge from hospital they went into hiding and did not undergo any further questioning. During the oral hearing they changed their story and went back to the first version, and explained that by hiding they meant that they were hiding from the community and the local police, not from the KBG. Therefore, the veracity of their statements was called into question. 4.20 S.M. has claimed that he and his family used temporary passports in order to leave Azerbaijan, which they had allegedly obtained with the assistance of an organization. However, if the complainants were of interest to the authorities, it is unlikely that they would have been able to obtain passports. Moreover, if the complainants had been treated in the manner alleged, this information would have been brought to the attention of the Swedish embassy either by other embassies and institutions with which it has regular contacts or by human rights organizations that are very active in Azerbaijan. Therefore, the State party considers it improbable that the complainants were subjected to the violations alleged upon their return to Azerbaijan. The fact that the Swedish embassy has no information about the incidents and that the information in the document issued by UNHCR Baku is inconsistent with what the complainants have stated before the Swedish authorities calls into question the veracity of their allegation of past ill-treatment. 4.21 The State party recalls that, while past torture is one of the elements to be taken into account when making the assessment pursuant to article 3, the deciding factor is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be subjected to any treatment contrary to the Convention upon return to their home country. In view of the fact that the complainants left the country in December 2004, there is little to suggest that they would still be of interest to the Azerbaijani. 4.22 In conclusion, the State party submits that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainants do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Accordingly, the enforcement of the expulsion order would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Since the complainants' claim fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded. Concerning the merits, the State party contends that the communication reveals no violation of the Convention. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 By letter of 31 March 2010, the complainants submitted that the specialist who carried out the psychiatric examinations is one of Sweden’s foremost experts in diagnostics 10