CAT/C/71/D/883/2018 Armenia where corruption and deficiencies in the judicial system were widespread. In addition, the question as to whether an asylum seeker has protection needs should be assessed prior to the question of whether it is possible for the asylum seeker to obtain protection or relocation within his or her country of origin. 5.3 The complainants reiterated that it was very unfortunate that the Migration Court had not granted the family an oral hearing. They submitted that in cases where credibility was challenged, it was common practice to have an oral hearing so that the complainants would have an opportunity to respond to any doubts that the State party may have. In the present case, this procedure had not been followed, which was a serious breach of the complainants’ right to a proper investigation. Since the Court did not grant them an oral hearing, its judgement was not based on a thorough and meaningful investigation. 5.4 Regarding the fact that it had been a long time since the family had been in Armenia, the complainants recalled that there had been no indications that threats from the authorities in Armenia had ceased to exist after a certain time. In any case, they reiterated that their family had received threats from people looking for V.M., indicating that he was still a person of interest to the authorities of Armenia. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 17 January 2020, the State party reiterated its previous arguments and pointed out that the complainants’ further observations did not include any new submissions in substance which had not already essentially been covered by the State party’s observations of 24 April 2019. The State party nevertheless clarified that even if there might be aspects of the complainants’ submissions that it had not addressed, that should not be interpreted as acceptance of those assertions. 6.2 The State party also clarified that when someone has plausibly demonstrated that he or she is in need of international protection, the Swedish migration authorities apply Swedish administrative and immigration law as well as, inter alia, the procedure for establishing facts in accordance with paragraphs 195 to 205 of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The Migration Court of Appeal has clarified that an examination is made in two steps: to examine whether the complainant’s asylum claim is sufficient to constitute a need for international protection and to assess whether the complainant is considered credible. If, for example, the stated reasons for asylum are deemed insufficient to constitute grounds for international protection, there is no need to assess the asylum seeker’s credibility. In the present case, the Swedish Migration Agency did question the credibility of the complainants’ asylum claims, due to a number of circumstances. However, both the Agency and the Migration Court concluded that the stated grounds for asylum were in any case insufficient to warrant the complainants’ international protection. Accordingly, it was not necessary for the Court to hold an oral hearing in order to examine the complainants’ credibility. 6.3 In sum, the State party reiterates its position that the complainants’ claims and the facts relied on by them are insufficient to conclude that the alleged risk of ill-treatment upon their return to Armenia meets the requirements of being foreseeable, personal, present and real. Accordingly, there is no reason to conclude that the national decisions or rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6