CAT/C/38/D/296/2006 Page 6 2, of the Convention, on the basis that it is manifestly unfounded and so does not rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility for an alleged breach of article 3. The State party refers, for this conclusion, to its arguments on the merits, set out below. 4.11 On the merits, the State party contests that the communication reveals a violation of the Convention. It refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence 2 that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country. Additional grounds must exist to show that the individual would be personally at risk. 4.12 With regard to the general situation concerning human rights in Azerbaijan today, the State party points to Azerbaijan’s membership of the Council of Europe and that Azerbaijan has ratified several major human rights instruments, including the Convention. While noting reports of human rights abuses, including arbitrary detentions and incidents of beating and torture of persons in custody by the security forces, particularly of prominent activists, the State party shares the view of the Migration Board that the situation in Azerbaijan at present does not warrant a general need for protection for asylum seekers from Azerbaijan. 4.13 As to the personal risk of torture, the State party refers to the Committee's jurisprudence3 that for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he is returned. In addition, it is for the complainant to present an arguable case and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion although it does not have to meet the test of being highly probable4. It draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that several provisions of both the 1989 Aliens Act and the new Aliens Act, which came into force in March 2006, reflect the same principle as that laid down in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The State party points out that the Swedish authorities therefore have to apply the same kinds of test as the Committee will apply when examining a subsequent complaint under the Convention. 4.14 The State party claims that the complainant’s return to Azerbaijan would not entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. It submits that great weight must be attached to the decisions of the Swedish migration authorities, as they are in a very good position to assess the information submitted in support of an asylum application and to assess the credibility of an applicant’s claims. The State party notes that the Migration Board conducted two interviews with the complainant and had ample time to assess the facts and documentation concerning the application. 2 Communication No.150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3 and Communication No.213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3 3 Communication No.103/1998, S.M.R. and M.M.R. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 5 May 1999, para. 9.7. 4 General Comment No. 1 concerning implementation of article 3 of the Convention, A/53/44, Annex XI, adopted on 21 November 1997; Communication No.150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para.6.4 and Communication No.265/2005, A.H. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 16 November 2006, para. 11.6