CAT/C/65/D/691/2015 violation of article 3 of the Convention.20 Hence, the State party contends that the expulsion of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would only entail a breach of the Convention if she could show that she would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 7.11 The State party submits that, in view of the fact that the Migration Agency and the migration courts are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice, there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the State party suggests that considerable weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities, as expressed in their rulings ordering the expulsion of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that the complainant arrived in Sweden in October 2011 and was granted temporary residence due to her ties to her husband. She did not apply for asylum until December 2013, after her husband had already divorced the complainant and no longer supported her application for a residence permit. She thus had ample time to present her reasons for requesting asylum to the Swedish authorities if she had deemed it necessary to apply for asylum because of her alleged political activities. 7.12 The State party further submits that both the Migration Agency and the Migration Court held that there were reasons to question the credibility of the complainant’s account. The Migration Agency held that, inter alia, the complainant’s account was merely speculative and based on assumptions. The only concrete events on which the complainant’s fear was based were the alleged visit to her parents’ house by her exhusband’s brothers, certain attempts by her ex-husband’s family to call her and her exhusband’s behaviour in Sweden while they lived together. 7.13 The State party notes that the Migration Agency found that the certificate from the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan in Paris submitted by the complainant stated that she had left the Islamic Republic of Iran because of oppression by the regime due to her political activities, which is not consistent with her own account of why she left the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party also notes that, compared with her submissions before the national authorities, the complainant’s account before the Committee has escalated, especially regarding the allegations concerning her ex-husband’s accusations and his wish to punish her by disseminating pictures of her and her fear of being charged and convicted by the Iranian authorities. Also, before the Committee the complainant stated that she had been politically active since she was 18; however, that information was not provided to the Swedish authorities. 7.14 With respect to the alleged threat from the complainant’s ex-husband or his family, the Migration Agency held that there was nothing to indicate that they wanted to harm her, and thus her fear seemed to be based solely on speculation and hearsay. No evidence or reasoning has been presented to support the complainant’s allegation that her ex-husband has accused her, or will accuse her, of infidelity or promiscuity or that he, for example, will share intimate pictures of her with the authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 7.15 The State party draws the Committee’s attention to another document submitted by the complainant in support of her allegation that her ex-husband had abused and threatened her. It was submitted as a decision by the police to close an investigation against the complainant’s ex-husband regarding one count of assault and one count of an illegal threat on 18 August 2013. The State party, however, notes that, despite the very poor quality of the document, it seems that the document was addressed to the complainant’s ex-husband rather than to the complainant herself. The State party also notes that, according to the case files of the Migration Agency, it was the complainant herself who was suspected of simple assault on 18 August 2013. There is no official information that her ex-husband was suspected of any criminal offence on the same day. According to the case files, her ex- 20 8 The State party notes that the Migration Agency based its decision on country information from the report of the United Kingdom Home Office, Country of Origin Information Service, Iran Country of Origin Information Report, dated 16 December 2013.