CAT/C/50/D/463/2011 assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, although it does not have to meet the test of being highly probable.3 4.7 The Swedish migration authorities and courts apply the same test in assessing the risk of being subjected to torture when considering an asylum application under the Act, as the Committee would apply when examining a subsequent communication under the Convention.4 The national authorities are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to appraise his or her statements and claims in view of the fact that they have the benefit of direct contact with the asylum seeker concerned. In the light of the above, considerable weight must be attached to the assessment made by the Swedish migration authorities. 4.8 Concerning the assessments of the credibility of the complainant’s statements, the State party relies mainly on the reasoning contained in the decision of the Migration Board, dated 5 June 2009, and the judgment of the Migration Court, dated 14 June 2010. It further points out that the complainant initially submitted his asylum request under the identity of J.B.M. and, in support of this, provided documents that proved to be false. Afterwards, before the Migration Court, he held that his true identity was that of D.Y. and submitted a copy of his passport, a copy of his birth certificate, an original driving licence and a military service book. However, he could not produce a reasonable explanation as to how he was able to obtain a passport in 2006, while in prison, especially taking into account, that he had been prohibited from leaving the country. Nor could he explain how he got a second passport in 2003 when he got married, as passports are not issued in connection with marriages in Uzbekistan. All this gives enough grounds to question his general credibility, the veracity of his identity as well as of his claims in other respects of the case. 4.9 According to the medical certificate issued by a medical doctor of the Swedish Red Cross, on 8 November 2010, the complainant’s injuries and scars may have been caused in accordance with his claims. Therefore, it is not possible to draw any certain conclusions regarding the cause of the complainant’s injuries , and its value as evidence must be considered low. Likewise, the medical certificate indicating that he suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder cannot be conclusive as to his claims. 4.10 The complainant has not submitted any document for the purpose of substantiating that he was convicted of violating military law. Nor has he submitted a ny documents concerning his allegation that he was forbidden to travel and put under supervision. The complainant stated that he used to be in possession of a document substantiating that he was under supervision, but that he submitted this to the local authorities when reporting to the police. However, the State party finds it peculiar that he has not been able to provide a description of the content of that document during the interviews. 4.11 During the asylum proceedings, the complainant gave vague or contradictory information about the events in Andizjan. In the first interview before the Migration Board, he did not mention being involved in these events. Afterwards, he told the authorities that his regiment was garrisoned 500–600 metres from Andizjan, that the protesters gathered near his regiment, and that a prison was located nearby. Later, he withdrew his statement and said that the regiment was about 40 minutes to an hour from the place where the demonstration was held. He did not clearly state that the demonstration took place in the centre of Andizjan until the Migration Court’s hearing. Moreover, he was not able to provide names of central places where the demonstration took place, and his statement that 3 4 T he State party refers to the complaint No. 103/1998, S.M.R. and M.M.R. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 5 May 1999, para. 9.7, and to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX. Reference is made to Chapter 4, Sections 1 and 2 of the Aliens Act before 1 January 2010 and to Chapter 4, Sections 1, 2 and 2a of the Aliens Act after 1 January 2010. 7