CAT/C/47/D/374/2009 suffering harm, she had made repeated visits to the Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinic. H.M. maintained that the medical reports corroborated her allegation of the serious abuse she had suffered upon return to her home country. 4.7 The complainants adduced a written communication by a representative of UNHCR, stating that Armenians and those with mixed ethnicity who return after having sought asylum abroad run a high risk in Azerbaijan. The communication further stated that it was doubtful whether Azerbaijan would take them back, and if they would be accepted, there was a great risk that they would come under pressure from the security services or be treated without sympathy by the majority of the rest of the population. It also recalled that the majority of the Armenians in Azerbaijan hide their identity. Moreover, the complainants also adduced a written communication from a representative of Amnesty International, Sweden, stating, inter alia, that the complainants should be regarded as people in a mixed marriage. In addition, H.M. submitted a document produced by an organization working to strengthen the rights of Azerbaijani women. 4.8 The Migration Board opposed the grant of the appeal, stating that the complainants have not shown convincingly that they are to be regarded as refugees or in need of protection, nor can they be granted a residence permit on any other grounds. Their respective accounts cannot form the basis of assessment of the risk of persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment, since there were several inconsistencies that undermined the general credibility of their claims. Regarding the alleged health problems, the Board held that there was nothing to indicate that they would be unable to receive adequate medical care in Azerbaijan. 4.9 On 7 September 2007, the Migration Court rejected the complainants’ appeals, stating that the medical reports and other written evidence submitted did not substantiate the complainants’ claim of ill-treatment on the occasions they alleged. The documents produced by them contained contradictory information. Furthermore, the documents issued by UNHCR and Amnesty International did not prove that State-sanctioned persecution of people of Armenian origin occurs in Azerbaijan. Therefore, the Court concluded that the complainants had not substantiated that they ran a risk of torture upon return. 4.10 The complainants appealed against the judgment and held that the Migration Court had made an erroneous assessment of the evidence adduced. On 21 December 2007, the Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant leave to appeal. The complainants then filed applications to the Migration Board alleging that new circumstances had emerged granting them the right to a residence permit or, alternatively, a re-examination of their case. These applications were rejected for the reason that the circumstances invoked only constituted amendments or modifications to previous submissions in the complainants’ asylum applications. The Migration Court upheld the Migration Board’s decision. 4.11 With regard to the admissibility of the complaint, the State party submits that it is not aware of the present matter having been or currently being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and also acknowledges that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. However, the State party maintains that the complainants' claim that they are at risk of treatment contrary to the Convention fails to attain the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility, and therefore is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention.2 4.12 Should the Committee consider the complaint admissible, the issue before it is whether the forced return of the complainants to Azerbaijan would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The State party recalls that, when determining whether the forced 2 See communication No. 216/2002, H.I.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2003, para. 6.2. 7