CAT/C/40/D/309/2006 Page 5 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. It points out that the Swedish authorities therefore apply the same kinds of test as the Committee when examining complaints under the Convention. 4.2 The State party claims that R. K.'s return to Azerbaijan would not entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Great weight must be attached to the decisions of the Swedish migration authorities, as they are well placed to assess the information submitted in support of an asylum application and to assess the credibility of an applicant's claims. R. K. failed to substantiate his allegations of past abuse and provided no evidence in support of these allegations – either medical reports or photographs. He merely described the situations in which he was allegedly abused in broad terms and provides no specific details of the events. He failed to demonstrate that any of the alleged assaults were aimed at him personally, and appeared to have taken place in connection with political meetings and demonstrations where mass arrests took place. Although he claims to have been arrested and taken to a police station on three occasions in Azerbaijan, there is no indication that he was subjected to any kind of abuse while detained, despite the fact that the arrests were alleged to have been made in connection with his political activities and work as a journalist. He was never detained for more than a few hours, was never prosecuted for the acts that led to the arrests. The State party deduces that the Azeri authorities must have been less interested in him than he claims if he was only briefly arrested on three occasions. 4.3 The State party further submits that R. K. did not prove that an order for his arrest was in fact issued, and he does not explain why he was never arrested. It refers to the witness statement, which he claims to have given during a court hearing on 16 September 2004 implicating himself in having urged the demonstrators to march on 16 October 2003, but also notes that he was not arrested during these proceedings. He alleges that they planned to “take care of him” in another way. In support of his claim about his witness statement, he invoked a newspaper article in Yeni Musavat that he claims was published on 17 September 2004. According to a report, dated 4 July 2007, of an investigation by a lawyer practicing in Azerbaijan at the request of the Swedish embassy in Ankara, it would appear that R. K. is not mentioned in the judgment of the proceedings referred to in this article. He is neither wanted by the authorities, nor has been convicted of any crime. In any event, the State party submits, as it would appear that in 2005 a pardon was granted to all seven opposition leaders who were sentenced to prison in the aftermath of the 2003 elections and that their previous convictions were quashed, it appears highly unlikely that the authorities would be interested in arresting and pressing charges against him for his alleged activities in connection with those elections. 4.4 In the same report of 4 July 2007, the Swedish embassy in Ankara confirmed that R. K. is a member of the Musavat Party, but that he never held a leading position in the party, and that his political activity was confined to being a journalist for Yeni Musavat. The report also states that, Musavat is an opposition party in constant trouble with the authorities, mainly in 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