CAT/C/40/D/309/2006 Page 7 journalists critical of the regime are under constant threat from the authorities and suffer attacks, abuse and physical violence. The complainants confirm that R. K. was never convicted of a criminal offence nor “officially” wanted by the authorities. This fact alone however does not take away from the fact that he is considered a threat to the regime. The claimant denies that there are no known cases of other journalists who have left the country, as claimed in the report, and refers to one such journalist who was granted asylum in Sweden. As to the fact that R. K. is not mentioned in the judgement, it is explained that the authorities would not report such a witness statement in an official judgement that would tarnish their reputation. They acknowledge that he was not in a leadership position within the party, but claim that he had been a prominent person within the Yeni Musavat. 5.3 As to the arguments on the broad nature of the descriptions of the abuse allegedly suffered by R. K., the complainants submit that it is difficult for R. K. to recall every detail, and refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence that accounts of past torture will contain inconsistencies or be inaccurate but that complete accuracy is seldom expected of victims of torture.5 They attach a forensic and a psychiatric medical report, dated 22 and 23 of October 2007, respectively, which according to them give a thorough account of the past persecution, harassment and physical abuse to which he was subjected. The forensic report states that the results of the examination can possibly verify his claims of exposure to blunt instruments; the psychiatric report confirms that R. K. suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). According to the complainants, they demonstrate that R. K. has a state of ill-health that is consistent with the information he has given about his persecution. The complainants refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence by arguing that the fact that R. K. suffers from PTSD should be taken into account when assessing his case.6 5.4 As to the State party’s view that there is no general need for protection of asylum seekers from Azerbaijan, the complainants submit that they have never made such a claim, but rely on their argument that R. K. is currently personally at risk. They question whether the Swedish migration authorities apply the same kind of test as the Committee when considering an application for asylum under the 1989 Aliens Act, as the test applied is one of a “well-founded fear” rather than “substantial grounds” for believing that an applicant would be subjected to torture, as in the Convention. According to the complainants, the current case was examined in a “routine manner”, and the Migration Board did not consider the case in a balanced, objective and impartial way. 5.5 As to the general human rights situation in Azerbaijan, the complainants submit that the situation has deteriorated, in particular for journalists. Concern is expressed for the freedom of the media and the freedom of expression and journalists have increasingly been subjected to threats, harassment and physical abuse. False charges of slander are used as intimidation. There has been a dramatic increase in defamation charges brought against journalists by state officials, and eight journalists are currently detained in Azerbaijan today. Those affiliated with the Musavat party are harassed, arrested, detained and beaten, and there have been attempts to close down the Yeni Musavat newspaper by filing multiple lawsuits against it. Sources have also reported unexplained deaths of two opposition supporters. Politically motivated arrests are used by the government to suppress the opposition. It is common that such detainees remain in re-trial detention for more than a year after arrest, and non5 6 Communication No. 39/1996, Tala v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 November 1996. Communication No. 65/1997, I.A.O. V Sweden, Views adopted on 6 May 1998.