CAT/C/56/D/594/2014 dated 12 January 2008 and that judgement number 80 did not exist. The lawyer concluded that the last two facts confirmed that the judgement was false. In view of that finding, the State party considers that the authenticity of the “summonses” and “statements” can also be called into question. Taking into account that the complainant has not subsequently submitted any new documents in support of his claims for asylum, the State party concludes that the written evidence submitted by the complainant does not plausibly establish his need for protection. 4.13 The State party also assessed the complainant’s oral submissions. In that regard, the State party reiterates that there are several reasons to question the complainant’s credibility: his accounts were lacking in detail, many of his claims were pure speculation and his affirmations regarding the terrorists were not plausible. The State party further notes that the complainant did not submit his passport and that during the asylum proceedings it appeared that he had a legal visa for France and had waited 1.5 months before applying for asylum in Sweden. In the light of those findings, the national migration authorities found that the complainant’s claims were not plausible. The State party also considers that the complainant has submitted falsified documents to the national migration authorities and the Committee, which puts the credibility of his claims for asylum in question. The State party thus concurs with the opinion of the Migration Board and the migration courts that the complainant has not substantiated his claims that he risks imprisonment and torture upon return to his country of origin. Moreover, the Algerian legal system is not generally considered to exhibit such severe flaws as to justify international protection. 4.14 The complainant has stated that he is under a real threat of being killed by the terrorist organization, which carried out a robbery against his workplace and blames him for the death of two members of their organization during the robbery. He has further stated that the Algerian authorities would not protect him since he is a criminal suspect and has been sentenced for associating with the terrorist organization. The Swedish migration authorities have found that there is no reason to believe that the Algerian authorities would not offer the complainant protection from the alleged threats from the terrorist organization. As noted by the Migration Board, it is primarily their responsibility to offer the complainant protection against the alleged threats and against any similar threats that may arise in the future. The State party shares the view of the Migration Board and the Migration Court that, despite the deficiencies in the Algerian judicial system, the competent authorities generally speaking do not lack the will or the ability to protect the country’s inhabitants.19 The State party therefore agrees with the conclusion of the domestic authorities that the complainant has not plausibly demonstrated that he would risk being subjected to treatment, either by the Algerian authorities or by terrorists, that would constitute grounds for protection. The State party argues that the claim that the complainant’s family members have been detained and questioned by the Algerian authorities does not alter that assessment. Furthermore, the complainant has not plausibly demonstrated his claim made only before the national migration authorities that he risks being prosecuted on grounds of his religious views or his membership of a particular social group upon return to his country of origin.20 4.15 In conclusion, the State party submits that the evidence and circumstances invoked by the complainant do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture is foreseeable, real and personal. Accordingly, under the present circumstances, enforcement of the expulsion order would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The State party considers that, owing to the lack of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention. 19 20 See Department of State country reports on terrorism, 2013. That claim has not been made in the context of the complaint before the Committee. 9