CAT/C/40/D/301/2006 Page 6 complainant was to be considered credible was not decisive in the Board’s decision to deny his asylum request. 4.5 The State party explains that following a request by the Government, the Swedish Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, conducted an investigation concerning the political activities of the complainant as well as the authenticity of the documents submitted by him. The investigation confirmed his identity and the fact that he is a member of Musavat. However, information about the exact position he held in that party could not be obtained. The judgment of the court imposing a fine is genuine as well as the summons to appear before the same court. Concerning the summons of 31 August 2004, the investigators concluded that it was forged, as no person named J. Azizov ever worked for the relevant authority. Several other formal requirements have not been complied with. On the issue whether the complainant would face torture if returned to Azerbaijan, the Embassy considered the risk of torture to be highly unlikely, as being a member of an opposition party is normally not a problem in Azerbaijan. 4.6 The State party argues that, according to the complainant’s submission, he has never been detained for more than three days and his longest period of detention occurred in 1998. It contends that, had the Azerbaijani authorities considered him to be a threat to the regime, they would have kept him in detention for longer periods. In addition, according to reports by the OSCE and Human Rights Watch, out of 600 individuals detained during the demonstration on 16 October 2003, 125 were sentenced to imprisonment for up to five years. It submits that, in 2005, a presidential pardon was granted in Azerbaijan to all seven opposition leaders arrested and imprisoned in the aftermath of the 2003 elections. It follows that the complainant, whose alleged position in the party was much lower than that of the party leaders, would run no risk of torture. 4.7 As to the summonses invoked by the complainant, the State party contends that the summonses dated 1 March and 30 December 2004 were issued mainly to ensure that the complainant pay the fine imposed on him. With regard to the summons of 31 August 2004, even if it was considered to be genuine, there is nothing to support the complainant’s contention that he was called for questioning about the demonstration in October 2003. Additionally, that document would not prove that the complainant is wanted today, particularly in view of the 2005 presidential pardon. 4.8 As to the alleged physical abuse and damage to the complainant’s kidneys, the State party argues that there is no evidence to prove that the kidney condition is the result of past abuse or torture. The alleged abuse in 1998 occurred so long ago that it cannot be considered to meet the requirement that a previous instance of torture should have happened in the recent past in order to be pertinent to the risk of being subjected to torture.1 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 August 2007, the complainant recalls that his case was not re-examined under the 2005 Aliens Act, although he did invoke new circumstances in accordance with the new legislation. He indicates that reports of the interviews by the Migration Board are quite brief and that they do not reflect all the answers provided by him. 1 The State party refers to Communication No. 191/2001, S.S. v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 5 May 2004, paragraph 6.6.