CAT/C/71/D/904/2018 the event that the Committee declares the communication admissible, it should find that the complainant’s expulsion to Ethiopia would not constitute a breach of the Convention. 4.3 According to the State party, the assessments by the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court reveal that they thoroughly examined the complainant’s oral and written submissions. The State party recalls that the Committee has previously held that it is for the courts of States parties, rather than for the Committee, to evaluate facts and evidence, unless the courts’ evaluation is clearly arbitrary or amounts to a denial of justice. In the case at hand, there is no reason to conclude that the assessments by the State party’s authorities of the complainant’s claim for international protection was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. These assessments must therefore be accorded considerable weight. 4.4 Furthermore, the State party submits that, while it does not wish to underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Ethiopia, the general human rights situation in the country is not such as to entail a general need to protect all asylum seekers. Moreover, the complainant has not shown that she personally faces a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon return to Ethiopia. Both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court held hearings and interviews and conducted thorough examinations. The complainant thus had ample opportunities to support her claims orally and in writing. The State party’s authorities have thus had sufficient information to adequately assess the complainant’s claim for international protection. 4.5 The State party explains that, in its overall assessment of the complainant’s case, the Swedish Migration Agency found the complainant’s account to be neither credible nor such as to conclude that she was in need of international protection. Specifically, in its firstinstance decision of 12 September 2017, the Swedish Migration Agency found it implausible that, even though she claimed that her family had been involved with the Ogaden National Liberation Front for several years and that she sympathized with the group’s cause, she was unable to specify any of the group’s main characteristics except that they were fighting for independence for Somalis in Somali Region in Ethiopia. Nor was she able to provide any detailed information regarding her family’s level of commitment to the group. Furthermore, the Swedish Migration Agency noted that, even though the complainant claimed to have been visited by representatives of the Government of Ethiopia on more than one occasion, she did not know how many people had come to look for her husband, to which part of the Government they belonged or whether they were police officers or soldiers. She provided contradictory information concerning a number of events that were of great importance to the account she gave in the course of the asylum proceedings. For example, she made conflicting statements about whether her brother had been killed or only shot and arrested at her home, and at what point he told the authorities about her husband’s involvement in the Ogaden National Liberation Front. She also provided inconsistent information concerning the time of her arrest, in particular whether it had happened on the day on which her brother had been shot or two days later, when the officials returned. 4.6 The State party asserts that the Migration Court, in its judgment of 28 June 2018, did not question the claim that the complainant had sustained the injuries documented in the investigation and documentation of torture. However, the investigation alone was not considered sufficient to plausibly demonstrate that the complainant faced risks of threat in Ethiopia. In this regard, the State party underlines that the Migration Court concurred with the Swedish Migration Agency’s negative assessment of the complainant’s credibility. In particular, the Migration Court found it peculiar that during the asylum investigation the complainant had stated that her husband’s only assignment had been to supply the Ogaden National Liberation Front with food, whereas at the Court’s oral hearing she had stated that her husband had also supported the group financially and supplied it with information. The Migration Court could not accept the complainant’s explanation that the inconsistency stemmed from errors of interpretation, because she had failed to duly signal these errors by commenting on the minutes of her interviews. In addition, she had never mentioned before that she did not dare to confront the interpreter because he was a man. She further provided unclear information as to the position of her brother within the Ogaden National Liberation Front. Lastly, the Migration Court questioned the complainant’s narrative about the circumstances of her release and her escape to the State party, especially because it found it 4