CAT/C/49/D/385/2009 3.2 Following the removal of the Qaddafi Government and the establishment of the National Transitional Council, the complainants claim that their forcible deportation would still violate article 3 of the Convention. They invoke instability in the Abu Salim area of Tripoli, and the fact that Z.A.’s cousins fought on the side of Qaddafi during the revolt. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 26 February 2010, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits. The State party acknowledges that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The State party considers that the complainants’ assertion that they are at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of the Convention fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility and is thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The State party refers, for this conclusion, to the Committee’s jurisprudence3 and its arguments on the merits, set out below. 4.2 The State party notes that the allegations made by the complainants in their complaint to the Committee were thoroughly examined by the Swedish Migration Board and Migration Court, applying the same kinds of test as those applied by the Committee in its jurisprudence. The State party considers that the credibility that may be attached to an asylum seeker’s statements is often of great significance to the assessment of the application, and that national authorities are in a very good position to estimate the credibility of a claim that a person would be at risk of treatment that would violate article 3 of the Convention, especially since they have personal contact with the asylum seeker. Before deciding on this case, the Migration Board conducted two interviews each with the main complainant and his wife, and the Migration Court held an oral hearing, which enhanced their ability to adequately assess the complainants’ submissions. 4.3 Regarding the written evidence presented by the complainants to substantiate their claims, the State party notes that the complainants’ identity documents were issued on the basis of photocopies of a “family book”, with one of the documents dated 2004, despite the fact that it was issued in 2007. The State party considers that the documents are therefore inconclusive in determining the identity of the complainants. The State party further considers that the complainants’ failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for not providing adequate identification documents weakens the general credibility of their submissions. In support of the claim that M.A.F. suffered a broken nasal bone as a result of having been subjected to violence by the Libyan police, the complainants submitted, in the national proceedings, a medical journal and a medical certificate from a Swedish doctor, both drawn up in January 2008. These documents do not indicate any connection between the alleged incident and the injury invoked and so do not, in the State party’s view, substantiate the complainants’ claim. In support of the claim that Z.A. lost a foetus as a result of being pushed by police, the complainants submitted a discharge sheet from a Libyan hospital, dated 3 December 2002. As far as the State party understands, this document does not establish any connection between the alleged incident and the loss of the foetus. In the State party’s view, the written evidence adduced by the complainants is not such as to substantiate that they would risk being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to Libya. 4.4 The complainants have not presented any documents in support of their claim that the family was persecuted and harassed by the Libyan authorities for many years. Since the alleged persecution is said to have gone on for a long time, and involved the arrest, 3 4 See, for example, communication No. 216/2002, H.I.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2003, para. 6.2.