CAT/C/64/D/641/2014 written observations and comments on the minutes from the interview. The purpose of the interviews was to allow the complainant to explain his case orally and to present all the facts that he considered to be of relevance to the assessment of his case by the authorities of the State party. Furthermore, on appeal, the Migration Court held an oral hearing, during which the complainant again was given the opportunity to explain in the presence of legal counsel and an interpreter his reasons for seeking asylum. The complainant has thus had several opportunities to explain relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claim and to argue his case, both orally and in writing, before the Migration Agency and the Migration Court. Against that background, the State party holds that the Migration Agency and the Migration Court had sufficient information, including the facts in the case, to ensure that they had a solid basis for conducting a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment of the complainant’s need for protection in Sweden. 4.6 Since the Migration Agency and the migration courts are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice, the State party contends 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 amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, it holds that great weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities, as expressed in their rulings ordering the complainant’s expulsion to Côte d’Ivoire. 4.7 The State party submits that, like the Migration Agency and the Migration Court, it does not question that the complainant worked with Simone Gbagbo. Furthermore, and like the Migration Court, the State party does not question that the complainant was interviewed regarding economic matters in a documentary. As the Migration Court has noted, a “forward-looking” assessment of the risks the complainant would face if returned to Côte d’Ivoire has to be made.17 In that respect, the State party shares the view of the Migration Court that there are credibility gaps in the complainant’s initial asylum statement and in the subsequent domestic asylum proceedings. 4.8 Firstly, the State party notes that the complainant’s account of having been followed and wiretapped in Côte d’Ivoire and subjected to two attempted kidnappings was not presented at the asylum investigation but at a later stage in the asylum proceedings. In that regard, the Migration Court in particular noted that the complainant, also at the oral hearing before the court, gave only a very general account of the two attempted kidnappings. The State party, like the Migration Court, considers this strange, particularly as, according to the complainant’s own account, the attempted kidnappings were a contributing factor in his leaving Côte d’Ivoire. In the State party’s view, the complainant could have been expected to have invoked this circumstance earlier in the asylum proceedings, given the nature of these alleged incidents. It recalls in that connection that the complainant was represented throughout the asylum proceedings by legal counsel, who could also have assisted him in that regard. 4.9 Furthermore, in accordance with the migration authorities and courts, the State party notes that the fact that the complainant did not apply for asylum in France or the Russian Federation also raises the question of whether his need for protection was as immediate as he now asserts (see para. 4.11 below). 4.10 Moreover, the State party notes that the complainant has submitted before the Committee a summons issued on 21 August 2012 by the police authorities in Abidjan and a poster with his photograph and a telephone number on it, in order to substantiate his claim that he is wanted by the Ivorian police authorities (see para. 2.8 above). In that regard, the State party notes that the summons is of a very simple nature and, therefore, of low 17 A relevant excerpt from the decision of the Migration Agency dated 18 December 2013 reads as follows: “The … Migration Agency does not question [the complainant’s] claim that [he] worked with Simone Gbagbo as described, nor that [he was] detained by a militia in spring 2011. Nor does the Agency question [his] claim that [he was] subjected to the treatment [he has] recounted during the week [he was] detained. This took place during the highly turbulent period around and after the elections in Côte d’Ivoire in autumn 2010 and spring 2011. The question is whether [he] today, in a forward-looking assessment, would risk being subjected to persecution constituting grounds for asylum or treatment constituting grounds for protection if [he] returned to Côte d’Ivoire.” 5