CAT/C/40/D/309/2006 Page 4 examination of the Migration Board’s decisions was transferred from the Aliens Appeals Board to three Migrations Courts. Between 15 November 2005 and 31 March 2006, an Interim Law was in force, under which provisions certain asylum-seekers who were denied asylum obtained a new opportunity to obtain a residence permit. These cases were analysed by the Migration Board and were not subject to appeal. On the complainants’ request, their application was reviewed by the Migration Board under the interim law. 2.5 On 4 September 2006, the Board rejected the complainants’ application, on the grounds that they could not be considered to have resided for long enough in Sweden. According to the decision itself, no new circumstances emerged which would constitute reasons to grant residence permits under the Aliens Act, and the family had not formed such ties with Sweden through their stay there that they would be entitled to residence permits on those grounds. The complainants consider that the Migration Board examined their case in a routine manner, without giving sufficient attention to the oral interview. The complaint 3. The complainants claims that if they are forcibly returned to Azerbaijan, they risk being tortured, in violation of article 3 of the Convention, on account of: R. K.’s political activities, as a member of the Musavat Party; his activities as a journalist for the opposition newspaper Yeni Masavat; and the witness statement he is alleged to have made before the Azerbaijani court on 16 September 2004. According to the complainants, it is well-known that the Azerbaijani authorities use torture during interrogations and provide a number of reports to demonstrate their view. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 13 September 2007, the State party challenged the admissibility and merits of the complaint. It only responds to the claims raised in relation to R. K. It confirms that he has exhausted domestic remedies but argues that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded. On the facts, it submits that the judgements for slander issued against R. K. by the Azeri courts were not criminal convictions but civil actions. It refers to the Committee's jurisprudence2 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. It also 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 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.