CAT/C/54/D/556/2013 Migration Board conducted an interview that lasted approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes. This was conducted in the presence of a counsel and an interpreter.11 On one occasion, the Board was able to re-examine “new circumstances” invoked by the applicant (see para. 4.2). 4.9 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, and its jurisprudence, stating that considerable weight will be given to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned.12 The State party asserts that the Swedish Migration Board and the Migration Court are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice and that there is no reason, therefore, to conclude that the examination by the national authorities was inadequate, or that the outcome was arbitrary or amounted to denial of justice. 4.10 The State party submits that it was able to identify several inconsistencies in the facts presented by the complainant. During the initial interview on 23 November 2011, the complainant claimed that he was born in Grozny and that his most recent address was in the village of Sernovodsk, approximately 55 to 60 km from Grozny. However, the driver’s licence submitted by the complainant, issued on 13 July 2010, shows his place of residence as Nazran, which is in Ingushetia. The complainant claimed that he was temporarily registered as resident in Nazran because it was cheaper to obtain a driver’s licence there. According to the country information referenced in paragraph 4.6 above, all citizens can reside in any location for up to 90 days without temporary registration. It is implausible that it would take the complainant more than 90 days to obtain a driver’s licence and, therefore, there is no acceptable explanation as to why the complainant would have temporarily registered his residence in Nazran. 4.11 The State party also submits that the complainant’s copy of his domestic passport, issued on 16 December 2008, indicates his place of residence as Sernovodsk, Chechnya. The complainant testified that his original passport was in the possession of the district office of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation. The country information referenced in paragraph 4.6 indicates that domestic passports contain information about “deregistration” from a previous permanent place of residence. Since the driver’s licence shows Nazran as the complainant’s place of residence, the State party concludes that the complainant was not able to substantiate that his permanent residence was in Chechnya. 4.12 The State party claims that it is improbable that, during the search in his house on 17 October 2011, the complainant kept his driver’s licence, but that the law enforcement officials confiscated his domestic passport. This is based on the fact that the domestic passport is the main identity document for Russian citizens that shows their place of residence. Furthermore, the complainant has not given a plausible explanation as to why his brother was arrested. The State party submits that it is unlikely that the Russian authorities would have arrested and convicted an innocent citizen for being a member of a rebel group. 4.13 The State party also claims that the information about the complainant’s brother’s arrest and conviction is implausible. According to the complainant, his brother was arrested and subsequently convicted for assisting rebels, in accordance with article 208 of the Russian Criminal Code. According to the information from the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, aiding and abetting rebel groups is punishable under the Russian Criminal Code, article 208, paragraph 1 (organizing an illegal group), article 208, 11 12 6 The State party submits that the complainant was represented by counsel throughout the asylum proceedings. The State party refers to communication No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, decision adopted 22 November 2006, para. 8.6.