CAT/C/47/D/374/2009 of torture and trauma injuries. As to the opinion of the State party that the documents submitted by Amnesty International and UNHCR did not prove that State-sanctioned persecution of persons of Armenian descent occur in Azerbaijan, they maintain that both organizations noted that asylum-seekers of Armenian origin or mixed ethnicity may be at high risk upon arrival in Azerbaijan, inter alia, of being pressurized by the security forces. Therefore, taking into account this information and the traumatizing experiences and pressure they have already faced in Azerbaijan, their return would expose them to a high risk of suffering at the hands of public officials or other individuals acting in an official capacity. The absence of new reports on discrimination against Armenians during one specific year should not be used as evidence that such discrimination has ceased, especially when various other reports concurrently indicate that Armenians in Azerbaijan are trying to conceal their ethnicity. 5.2 The complainants also contest the State party’s argument that they would most probably not have been received by Azerbaijan if they had been regarded as ethnic Armenians or as being of mixed ethnicity. In this context, they recall that the documents proving S.M.’s Armenian origin were not actually handed over to the border control officers, but were found in the family’s luggage after the departure of the Swedish escort. When the border officers discovered that S.M. tried to conceal his origins, the hostility towards them increased. They also add that S.M.’s brothers and sisters have also experienced various kinds of difficulties: at least one brother has left the country and one sister committed suicide after being abused. The others try to hide their ethnicity, and if they are successful in doing so, it does not mean that they would be safe upon return. Additional observations by the State party 6. In its submission of 4 October 2010, the State party recalled that it had questioned the veracity of the complainants’ account of ill-treatment upon their return to Azerbaijan in 2004 due to inconsistencies in their accounts (see, inter alia, paras. 4.15 and 4.18 above). It also contested that the complainants would still be of interest to the Azerbaijani authorities even if their alleged reasons for leaving Azerbaijan were considered substantiated. Therefore, the State party reiterates its previous observations and maintains that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainants do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture upon return fulfills the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal, and their deportation to Azerbaijan would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Additional comments by the complainants 7.1 In a submission dated 26 October 2010, the complainants’ counsel informed that the complainants’ daughter has been granted leave to remain in Sweden. She is staying in foster care with her brother and his family. The decision was based on the existing obstacle to the enforcement of the expulsion, namely that no adult can be expected to take care of her in Azerbaijan since her grandparents passed away and her parents (the complainants) are in hiding. Other elements considered were her health status, adaptation to Sweden, traumatic experiences and anamnesis of psychiatric problems. 7.2 By letter of 22 November 2010, the counsel submitted that the complainant’s request for family reunification with their daughter was denied on grounds that they have been in hiding for more than two years, and their daughter would be able to stay in foster care. Therefore, the expulsion order is still enforceable. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The 11