CAT/C/71/D/913/2019 in support of their claims and to argue their case, orally as well as in writing, before the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court. 4.16 In the light of the above, and of the fact that the Swedish Migration Agency and the migration courts are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice, the State party holds that there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or that it amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the State party holds that considerable weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities. 4.17 The State party emphasizes that the domestic migration authorities have based the assessments of the complainants’ cited need for protection on their oral accounts, as well as the evidence submitted by them. L.H.’s claim before the Committee that she was denied an oral hearing by the Migration Court is incorrect. In fact, the Court held oral hearings on both occasions when the complainants appealed the decisions of the Swedish Migration Agency to expel them. The Agency and the Court have thoroughly examined all the facts of the complainants’ case on several occasions, whereby they have considered whether their claims are coherent and detailed and whether they contradict generally known facts or available information on the country of origin. 4.18 Regarding the written evidence submitted to the domestic migration authorities, the State party notes the following. It is evident from the domestic decisions and judgment in the present case that those documents have been thoroughly examined by the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court. As described in the rulings, the documents submitted could not plausibly demonstrate the complainants’ cited need for international protection, because they, inter alia, were copies and of a simple nature and therefore easy to forge. Regarding the letter from a Russian activist submitted to the Committee, the State party notes that the letter was indeed submitted to the Swedish migration authorities as a letter from an ambassador in France. The domestic authorities questioned how the ambassador could be aware of the complainants’ situation or whether they would be persecuted by the Russian authorities. L.H. was not able to answer those questions during the domestic proceedings. Moreover, the Swedish authorities noted that the letter was sent from a regular webmail account, which can be easily created. The letter was therefore deemed to be of low probative value. It is unclear to the State party why the complainants have changed their account in that regard to now allege that the letter is from an “activist”. Irrespective of that matter, the same questions concerning the authenticity of the letters that were raised during the domestic proceedings can be raised with regard to the letter from the alleged activist. 4.19 Regarding the alleged summons to an interrogation, the Swedish migration authorities concluded that it was of a simple nature and that the summons did not say why L.H. had been summoned. Furthermore, the arrest warrant submitted was a copy and therefore of a simple nature. The documents were therefore deemed to be of low probative value. Furthermore, the photographs submitted could not be linked to the complainants in any way. 4.20 The State party notes that the complainants have submitted several other documents in support of their claims before the Committee. Nevertheless, the State party finds it pertinent to briefly comment on those new documents. The complainants now suggest that L.H.’s cousin was kidnapped and murdered in 2009 and that that information can be found on the Internet. Moreover, several of the warrants before the Committee have not been submitted to the domestic authorities. The State party notes that L.H. has not explained why she would have withheld those pieces of information during both of the domestic proceedings, and it must be concluded that it is reasonable to expect her not to omit such fundamental aspects of her claims during the domestic proceedings. The State party regards those claims by the complainants to be escalations of their asylum account before the Committee and strongly questions the veracity of those statements and documents. The State party also notes that L.H. has in no way substantiated her new claim that the person who was allegedly murdered is her cousin or is in any other way connected to her. 4.21 Regarding the complainant’s oral account, the Swedish Migration Agency has repeatedly found that she provided vague information regarding why the Russian authorities would have an interest in her. It is evident from the recorded minutes from the asylum investigations that L.H. was unable to explain how and why she was of interest to the 5