CAT/C/71/D/883/2018 3.2 The complainants claim that their deportation to Armenia would violate their rights under article 3 of the Convention, as they would be at a personal and real risk of being persecuted, tortured and ill-treated upon return. The complainants submit that the risk exists due to the fact that the father is still wanted by the police and that the family would not be able to obtain protection from the authorities. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 24 April 2019, the State party submitted that the complainants’ case had been assessed under the Aliens Act of 2005. The migration authorities, upon examining the facts of the case, had concluded that the complainants had not shown that they were in need of protection. 4.2 The State party enclosed its own translations of the proceedings of the Swedish migration authorities to show the reasoning behind the State party’s decision to expel the complainants. The findings confirm that the complainants are not in need of protection and can be expelled to Armenia. The State party recalled that the first, second and third complainants applied for asylum on 4 January 2015, and as the fourth complainant was born in Sweden on 9 October 2015, her application for asylum was submitted on 27 October 2015. Their asylum applications were rejected on 4 September 2017. The decision was appealed to the Migration Court, which rejected the appeal on 12 April 2018. On 16 May 2018, the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and the decision to expel the complainants became final. 4.3 The State party did not contest that the complainants had exhausted all domestic remedies. However, the complainants failed to sufficiently substantiate their claims, and therefore their complaint should be considered inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention. 4.4 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party asserted that, in considering the present case, it had examined the general human rights situation in Armenia, in particular the personal risk to the complainants of being subjected to torture if returned there. The State party noted that it was incumbent upon the complainants, who must present an arguable case, to establish that they ran a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being subjected to torture.4 In addition, while the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, it does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. 4.5 The State party further submitted that it was aware of the current human rights situation in Armenia, referring to recent reports by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 5 Freedom House,6 the United States Department of State,7 Amnesty International8 and Human Rights Watch.9 While the State party did not wish to underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Armenia, it concluded that the prevailing situation there could not be deemed such that there was a general need to protect all asylum seekers from the country. It concluded that the current lack of respect for human rights in and of itself was not sufficient, and that the complainants must show a personal and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 4.6 The State party submitted that several provisions of the Aliens Act reflected the principles contained in article 3 of the Convention, and therefore the State party’s authorities applied the same kind of test when considering asylum applications. According to sections 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 that case. The State party refers to Committee against Torture, H.O. v. Sweden, communication No. 178/2001, para. 13; A.R. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3; and the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 11. Utrikesdepartementets rapport, “Mänskliga rättigheter, demokrati och rättsstatens principer i Armenien: situationen per den 31 december 2017” (June 2018). Freedom in the World 2018 – Armenia (May 2018). Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2018: Armenia. Amnesty International Report 2017/18: Armenia (February 2018). World Report 2018: Armenia (January 2018). 3