2.10He also says that his life and that of his partner, P.A.M., a female to male transsexual, with whom he shared his political activities, was in danger. He says that their house was shot at on several occasions and that although they asked for police protection their requests were ignored. He asserts that they had to install a metal stockade in the living room of their house for protection. 2.11The complainant alleges that in 1995 there was an attempt to murder him: he received a bullet wound to his left hand from an individual to whom a uniformed police officer had given a gun. 2.12On 17 May 1997, the complainant left Costa Rica for good. With P.A.M. he made for Canada, where they applied for asylum. The Canadian Center for Victims of Torture took up their case and gave them legal, linguistic, health care and psychiatric support. The Canadian authorities, however, refused their application for asylum. 2.13On 12 July 2000, the complainant and P.A.M. fled to Sweden, where they immediately applied for asylum. The Swedish authorities refused their application. The complainant says that he is currently having to live clandestinely in Sweden in order not to be deported, since all domestic remedies have been exhausted in the State party. The complaint 3.1The complainant argues that his deportation would be a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention, since he is in danger of being subjected to further torture in Costa Rica. 3.2The complainant claims that the decision by the Swedish authorities was a mechanical one, that it was biased, that the officials showed a lack of humanitarian interest and that they considered only some parts of his statement and not the whole. He further argues that the procedure was not objective since it took place in Swedish with only sporadic assistance from untrained interpreters, which prevented him from understanding and responding to the decisions taken concerning him in his own language. The State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1In a written submission dated 15 October 2002, the State party set out its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint. On admissibility, and with reference to the requirement set out in article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, the State party expresses its confidence that the Committee will ascertain whether the complaint has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 4.2On the admissibility requirement set out in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the State party acknowledges that all domestic remedies have been exhausted in this case. The Swedish Migration Board held a first interview with the complainant on the day after his arrival in Sweden; the second interview took place on 26 July 2000. On 26 September 2000, the Migration Board rejected the complainant’s application for asylum and ordered that he should be deported to his country of origin. The complainant appealed, but the Aliens Appeals Board rejected the appeal on 19 February 2002. 4.3The State party contends, however, that the complaint should be declared inadmissible in accordance with article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, since it lacks the minimum substantiation that would render it compatible with article 22 of the Convention. As an example, the State party cites the case of Y. v. Switzerland.a 4.4Should the Committee declare the complaint to be admissible, the State party asserts that, as regards the merits of the complaint, returning the complainant to Costa Rica would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. It points out that, in accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, application of article 3 of the Convention must take account of (a) the general human rights situation in the country, and (b) the danger personally faced by the complainant of being subjected to torture in the country to which he is returned. 4.5On the general human rights situation in Costa Rica, the State party asserts that there is no consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. It bases its assertion on reports on the human rights situation in the country, on the Committee’s concluding observations on Costa Rica’s initial report of 2001, on the fact that consensual homosexual relationships between adults are legal in that country and on the fact that Costa Rica has ratified various human rights instruments, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The State party asserts that the torture alleged by the complainant took place some time ago and that the human rights situation in Costa Rica has considerably improved since. 4.6As to whether the complainant is personally in danger of being subjected to torture, the State party asserts that the circumstances he invokes are not sufficient evidence that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in Costa Rica. The State party refers in this connection to the Committee’s jurisprudence on the interpretation of article 3 of the Convention.b 4.7The State party adds that the complainant’s credibility is of vital importance in taking a decision on the application for asylum, and that the national authorities conducting the interviews are naturally in an excellent position to assess that credibility. The State stresses that the complainant’s statements contain various discrepancies and grey areas which diminish the credibility of his complaint. 4.8First, the State party contends that the complainant’s statements to the Swedish Migration Board and the Swedish Aliens Appeals Board and the complaint submitted to the Committee referring to the dates on which he was arrested and tortured while living in Costa Rica are not consistent. The complainant declared to the Swedish Migration Board and to the Canadian authorities that an organization called Acaina had filed suit against him 33 times, while he told the Swedish Aliens Appeals Board and reported in his complaint to the Committee that he had been arrested more than 30 times. Lastly, as to the circumstances of his being shot in 1995, he declared to the Swedish Migration Board and to the Canadian authorities that an individual had threatened to shoot P.A.M. but that he himself had intervened and been hit as a result. Before the Swedish Aliens Appeals Board, however, and in the complaint to the Committee, he stated that an individual had attempted to murder him and that it was then that he had been shot.