CAT/C/39/D/303/2006 Page 5 concluding that no new circumstances were invoked by him, that the allegation concerning torture had been addressed and that the situation in Azerbaijan had not deteriorated since the last decision in any decisive way. 4.6 On admissibility, despite the State party’s acknowledgment that the complainant has exhausted domestic remedies, it submits that the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly illfounded, and inadmissible ratione materiae, as falling outside the scope of the provisions of the Convention. On the latter argument, it specifically states that the claims relating to the complainant’s health condition fall outside the scope of article 3, as according to article 1 of the Convention the definition of torture relates to severe pain and suffering “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”. 4.7 On the merits, the State party refers to the findings of the domestic authorities and adds the following. As to the general human rights situation in Azerbaijan, it submits that Azerbaijan has been a party to the Convention against Torture since 1996, has made a declaration under article 22 to deal with communications and has ratified several other human rights instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. It has also been a party to the CoE since January 2001 and is a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The CoE has been monitoring the human rights situation and it appears that some progress has been made. An example of such has been that a number of persons defined by the CoE as political prisoners have been released by Azerbaijan in recent years. However, the State party admits that although positive results have been achieved, Azerbaijan is still reported as committing numerous human rights abuses, including beatings and torture of persons in custody by members of the security forces. It also submits that, while it does not wish to underestimate these concerns, they do not in themselves suffice to establish that the return of the complainant would entail a violation of article 3. The State party also highlights a recent decision by the Committee,3 in which it took note of the State party’s argument that although human rights abuses are still being reported in Azerbaijan, the country has made some progress towards improving its human rights record. In light of this, inter alia, the Committee concluded that the removal of the complainant to Azerbaijan in that case would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 4.8 In December 2006, the State party requested the assistance of the Swedish Embassy in Ankara about some of the issues raised in the case. The Embassy had most of the documents submitted to the Committee and also some other documents submitted by the complainant to the national authorities. It hired a lawyer, specializing in human rights, who it had previously engaged. It confirmed that the information concerning the complainant’s family and studies was correct, that his identity card and birth certificate were genuine, but that it was not possible to verify the authenticity of his passport or obtain information on whether he left Azerbaijan legally. It affirms that, although he was a member of the AXCP, his status was of a regular member and he was never an assistant to the chairman, Q. H., as alleged by the complainant. However, for a short period, he served as an unofficial body guard to Q. H. It affirms that his uncle was chief of police and later became Minister of the Interior. It also affirms that he spent eight years in prison, but after his release moved of his own free will to Russia. He presently works as a businessman and regularly travels between Azerbaijan and Russia. 3 A.H. v. Sweden, Communication No. 265/2005, Views adopted on 16 November 2006.