CAT/C/56/D/594/2014 4.10 The State party further argues that the Committee is not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body and that considerable weight should be given to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned.17 By referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, it submits that it is for the courts of the States parties to the Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.18 The State party contends that such allegations of arbitrariness or denial of justice do not apply to the outcome of the domestic proceedings in the present case. Accordingly, the State party considers that great weight must be attached to the opinions of the national migration authorities, as expressed in their decisions ordering the expulsion of the complainant to Algeria. The State party concludes that the return of the complainant to Algeria would not amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.11 The State party considers, like the migration authorities, that there are several reasons to question the veracity of the complainant’s claim that he would risk being subjected to torture in violation of article 3 of the Convention upon his return to Algeria. The State party agrees with the assessment made by the Migration Board and the Migration Court that the complainant’s account contains contradictory information and that the authenticity of the documents submitted can be called into question. The State party considers that the complainant has failed to provide a credible account of his claims. 4.12 In that connection, the State party agrees with the assessment made by the Migration Board and the Migration Court that the complainant has not plausibly established his identity by means of the documents submitted. In support of his grounds for asylum, he submitted, inter alia, copies of summonses from the Algerian police authorities and a copy of a judgement, in order to substantiate his claim that he had been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with hard labour. In its observations on the applicant’s previous case before the Committee, the State party shared the assessments by the Migration Board and the Migration Court that the documents submitted did not substantiate the complainant’s claims. As in its previous observations, the State party also reiterates that the documents submitted are of very limited probative value since they are copies of very simple documents, which are easy to produce. In the first place, the State party notes that the summonses require the complainant to report to the police for “a matter concerning [him]”, but they do not refer to any suspicion of involvement in criminal activities. Further, as assessed by the Migration Board and the Migration Court, the State party considers that the authenticity of the alleged judgement is open to serious question. In that regard, the State party recalls that the authenticity of the alleged judgement has been investigated by a lawyer engaged by the Embassy of Sweden in Algiers, whose report, dated 25 July 2011, was appended to the previous observations of the State party before the Committee. The State party refers to some of the statements made in the report, including that “close examination of the judgement demonstrates very clearly that it is a gross forgery, as judgements in criminal matters are not drawn up in this manner at all, as many expressions are missing and those that are used are quite inconsistent with the usual phraseology in a criminal matter…, and in general, forced labour is never specified, only imprisonment.” The lawyer also added that, for the sake of greater certainty, two visits were made to the court of Boumerdès and the Criminal Court. After thorough investigations, the lawyer was able to establish that there was no judgement against a person with the complainant’s name 17 18 8 See, for example, communication No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 22 November 2006, para. 8.6. See, for example, communication No. 219/2002, G.K. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 7 May 2003, para. 6.12.