CAT/C/71/D/883/2018 chapter 16, section 5, of the Aliens Act. According to the Act, the procedure in the Migration Court is in writing, unless it is assumed that an oral hearing would be advantageous for the investigation or promote a rapid resolution of the court action. On 22 February 2018, the complainants made an additional request for an oral hearing, which the Court rejected on 23 February 2018. The complainants were, however, invited to make additional written submissions. 4.13 Before the Migration Court, the complainants stated that the Armenian authorities had often refused to investigate accusations that officials had used violence or other forms of mistreatment and that impunity was widespread, which was why they had not been able to take the police officers to court. The Migration Court recognized that there may be deficiencies in the Armenian judicial system, that impunity was a widespread problem, that journalists had occasionally been subjected to police violence and that there were reports of abuse during police interrogations. However, it did not support the claim that the Armenian authorities subjected their citizens to persecution in the manner referred to by the complainants. 4.14 The Migration Court did not question the complainants’ account of what they had been subjected to in Armenia. It reiterated, however, that the actions had been performed by individual police officers acting outside their official capacity. The Court also found that the explanations provided by the complainants as to why they had chosen not to turn to the Armenian authorities did not constitute acceptable reasons for not seeking national protection. 4.15 The State party concluded that there were serious doubts regarding the credibility of V.M.’s stated need for protection and that the incidents he had suffered could not be considered sufficient to rise to the level of persecution qualifying them for international protection since they had not exhausted the available possibilities for protection in Armenia. The State party added that no evidence had been submitted to support the claim that the first complainant would be of interest to the police officers today. 4.16 The State party submitted that the complainants had been given many opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of their claimed need for protection and to argue their case, orally as well as in writing. The domestic authorities had thoroughly examined all the facts and evidence submitted by the complainants during the national asylum process. In addition, the Swedish Migration Agency had had the benefit of seeing, interviewing and questioning the complainants in person, directly assessing the information and documents submitted by them and examining the veracity of the claims made. 4.17 The State party found no reason to question the conclusions reached during the national asylum process, regarding the need for protection as described by the complainants in their complaint to the Committee. It concluded that the complainants’ account and the facts relied upon in their complaint were insufficient to conclude that the alleged risk of illtreatment upon their return to Armenia would meet the threshold of being foreseeable, personal, present and real. Consequently, an enforcement of the expulsion order would not, under the present circumstances, constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, the communication should be declared inadmissible, as manifestly ill-founded. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 11 July 2019, the complainants submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. Responding to the State party’s comments on credibility, the complainants submitted that V.M. had made a very detailed and thorough description of his case and deplored the fact that the family had not been granted an oral hearing at the Migration Court. The fact that the State party’s authorities had made their own subjective analysis regarding V.M.’s statement should not affect the credibility of the complainants’ case. The credibility assessment of an asylum seeker’s story should be made objectively, which had not been the case. 5.2 The complainants deplored the State party’s argument that the family should turn to the police in Armenia to seek protection. A police officer was always representing the State and it should not be appropriate to refer asylum applicants to other police in the same country to get national protection if the threat came from the police, especially in a country such as 5