CAT/C/39/D/308/2006 Page 13 6.2 The State party adheres to its previous statements and conclusions regarding the human rights situation in Azerbaijan and R. A.’s medical condition. It further notes that no medical certificates were submitted in the present case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It notes the State party's confirmation, in the submission of 9 May 2007, that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.2 The Committee recalls that for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the Convention and Rule 107 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. It notes that the complainant has provided no documentary evidence in support of her account of events in Azerbaijan prior to her and R. A.’s departure for Sweden. Specifically, she claimed that in July 2001 her husband was beaten and tortured during military service in the Azerbaijani military due to his mother being Armenian. However, beyond the mere claim, she and R. A. have failed to provide any detailed account of these incidents or any medical evidence which would corroborate this claim, including a proof of possible after-effects of such ill-treatment. Even assuming that R. A. was ill-treated in July 2001 during his military service, this did not occur in the recent past. 7.3 The Committee also notes that the main reason given by the complainant and her husband for his alleged ill-treatment in the Azerbaijani military and difficulties in living in the Azerbaijani society was his half Armenian ethnic origin. Neither proof of R. A.’s mixed ethnic origin nor any other identity documents was presented, however, by the complainant and her husband to the State party’s migration authorities and the Committee. Equally, there is no proof that R. A. was or is wanted for having deserted military service or for any other reason. 7.4 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s argument, contested by the State party’s authorities, that her husband suffered memory loss as a result of the car accident in October 2003 and, therefore, could not give any details of what happened to him in Azerbaijan. In this regard, the Committee observes that R. A.’s initial interview with the Migration Board took place on 15 September 2003, that is, before the car accident, and thus he had a possibility to give a more detailed account of his past experience and to present at least some of the documentary evidence in support of his claims. Moreover, the Committee was not provided with any medical evidence confirming that R. A. suffered from memory loss; such medical evidence was not presented to the Swedish migration authorities even when the complainant and her husband were assisted by a professional counsel. Furthermore, the complainant, who married R. A. in Azerbaijan in April 2003, also had a possibility to obtain a copy of her and her husband’s documents proving their identity and/or ethnic background. 7.5 Lastly, the Committee notes that the Swedish Migration Board gave the complainant and her family ample opportunity to substantiate their claims, by interviewing them several