CAT/C/71/D/883/2018 to 3 of chapter 12 of the Aliens Act, a person seeking asylum cannot be returned to a country where there are reasonable grounds to assume that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to the death penalty, corporal punishment, or torture or other degrading treatment or punishment. 4.7 Furthermore, the State party recalled that both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court had conducted thorough examinations of the complainants’ case. The Agency had held an introductory interview with the adult complainants on 5 January 2016. On 11 January 2016, the Agency had held an extensive asylum investigation with both of them that had lasted altogether about five hours. An additional asylum investigation had taken place with them on 11 March 2016 which had lasted about two hours. The complainants had been represented by public counsel, and had communicated through interpreters. Furthermore, the complainants had been given an opportunity to review and comment on the written records of all the interviews. 4.8 The State party therefore claims that both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court had sufficient information to make a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment. The State party recalled the Committee’s Views 10 in which the Committee had confirmed that it was not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body, and also recalled that considerable weight must be given to findings of facts made by organs of the State party concerned.11 4.9 The State party notes that as the case concerns two minors, the domestic authorities have, in accordance with national law, paid due regard to the principle of the best interests of the child and have thus considered the consequences that an expulsion order might have for the children’s health and development, in compliance with chapter 1, section 10 of the Aliens Act and based on article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 4.10 The State party recalls the facts of the communication and emphasizes that due consideration was given to whether the complainants’ account was coherent and detailed and did not contradict generally known facts or available information about the country of origin. Contrary to what the complainants have stated before the Committee, the Swedish Migration Agency considered that V.M. had not submitted a credible or reliable account regarding the alleged threat against him in Armenia. Firstly, the Agency questioned whether the police were indeed interested in him, since they repeatedly released him from custody after questioning him about the videotape. Nor did the Agency find it credible that the police would repeatedly detain V.M. to obtain a videotape to ensure that its contents would not come to the attention of the public, as similar contents were already available on the Internet. The State party was of the view that there were reasons to question the credibility and reliability of the claims by V.M. in this regard. 4.11 Regardless of whether V.M. had been subjected to repeated abuse and detention, the Swedish Migration Agency found that nothing had emerged indicating that these actions had been ordered by the Armenian State. Instead, it appeared to be a case of individual police officers acting outside their professional capacity. The Agency noted that the complainants had not requested help or protection from the Armenian authorities. The Agency further held that it was a basic principle that national protection took precedence over international protection and that only in cases where the authorities in the country of origin lacked the will or the ability to assist the individual was it possible to receive protection in Sweden. The Agency considered that even though there may be certain deficiencies in the Armenian judicial system, protection from the authorities was available. The Agency also noted that the incidents had happened a long time ago. Consequently, the Agency concluded that the complainants could not be considered to have exhausted all possibilities for protection in Armenia, which was a requirement for being entitled to international protection. 4.12 The State party recalled that in the complainants’ appeal before the Migration Court, they requested an oral hearing. The Court rejected the complainants’ request for an oral hearing, on 10 September 2017. It referred to the nature of the case and the information available as reasons why an oral hearing was deemed unnecessary, in compliance with 10 11 4 The State party refers – for example – to N.Z.S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/37/D/277/2005), para. 8.6. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 50.