CAT/C/54/D/539/2013 inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or to a country where the alien would not be protected from being sent on to a country in which he or she would be at such risk. 4.10 The State party also notes that the national authorities are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to appraise the credibility of his or her claims. In that regard, the State party underlines that, in the present case, both the Migration Board and the Migration Court conducted a thorough examination of the complainant’s case. As part of the asylum application process, the complainant was interviewed by Migration Board. The purpose of the interview was to give him an opportunity to present the reasons why he needed protection and to explain all the facts relevant to the Migration Board’s assessment. The interview lasted 3 hours and 20 minutes and was conducted in the presence of an interpreter, who the complainant confirmed that he understood well. The complainant has also argued his case in writing before the Migration Board and the migration courts. The Migration Court also held an oral hearing during which the complainant presented his arguments. The complainant was represented by legal counsel throughout the asylum application process. Against that background, the State party holds that the Migration Board and the migration courts had sufficient information, together with facts and documentation, to constitute a solid basis for making a well-informed, transparent and reasonable assessment of the complainant’s need for protection in Sweden. 4.11 The State party recalls the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, which states that the Committee is not an appellate, a quasi-judicial or an administrative body, and that considerable weight will be given to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned, as well as its jurisprudence.7 Moreover, the Committee has held 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 the evaluation was made was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.8 4.12 In the light of the aforementioned and the fact that the Migration Board and the migration courts are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice, the State party contends that there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was arbitrary in any way or that they amounted to a denial of justice in the present case. The State party submits that great weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities, as expressed in their decisions to expel the complainant to the Russian Federation. 4.13 The State party observes that the complainant alleged that expelling him to the Russian Federation would be a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as he would risk being subjected to torture because he had been suspected of supporting the rebels in the Chechnya region by selling groceries from his father’s shop to them. However, the complainant emphasized that he had never sympathized with the rebels nor participated in their activities. Despite that, he alleged that he was arrested, detained and subjected to torture on two occasions. In that regard, the State party, like the migration authorities, finds many aspects of the complainant’s story contradictory and vague and raises questions about his general credibility. In particular, the complainant has not provided any medical documentation showing that he had been subjected to ill-treatment. During the domestic 7 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 9; also 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, Views adopted on 7 May 2003, para. 6.12. 7