CAT/C/46/D/310/2007 (d) During the criminal proceedings in 1991, he stated that he had fled from Lebanon to Sweden in 1990 together with his family. 4.7 The State party challenges the complainant’s claim that he had left Beirut on a Lebanese “laissez passer passport”, based on information from the Swedish Embassy in Damascus that he was not registered with relevant authorities in Beirut. 4.8 The State party argues that it cannot be excluded that the complainant’s scar formations result from causes other than torture suffered between 1997 and 2000. Even assuming that he was tortured on return to Syria in 1997, the compatibility of his deportation with article 3 of the Convention must be decided in light of the information that was known, or ought to have been known, to the State party at the time of the expulsion, although subsequent events are relevant to the assessment of the State party’s knowledge. The State party argues that, prior to his expulsion in 1997, there were no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be tortured in Syria because: (a) He had never applied for asylum in Sweden. During a supplementary investigation by the police in May 1991, the investigator specifically noted that since the complainant had applied for a residence permit in Sweden based only on his ties to Sweden, his political activities had not been examined in detail. (b) It was not until his August 1993 application for revocation of the expulsion order that the complainant claimed that he would be at risk of being subjected to torture, and only if returned to Lebanon (rather than to Syria). (c) It was only in April 1996, in an interview with the Swedish Immigration Board, and in his November 1996 application for revocation of the order, that he claimed a risk of torture if returned to Syria. However, he neither mentioned any torture suffered during the civil war in Lebanon nor did he submit any evidence to that effect. (d) On several occasions before his expulsion, he had provided the Swedish authorities with contradictory, incorrect and incomplete information concerning his birthplace, age and family, the time of his arrival in Sweden and his travel documents. This had considerably complicated the authorities’ task of making an adequate risk assessment prior to his expulsion to Syria. (e) Prior to 1997, he had never claimed that he was wanted by the Syrian authorities for fighting against Syria during the Lebanese civil war or that he was at risk of being convicted of a State crime if returned to Syria. According to a protocol dated 8 January 1997 of the Norrköping police, he merely expressed concern during the journey to Damascus in January 1997 that he would be arrested for failing to perform his military service in Syria. However, he told the Syrian security guard escorting him that he had served a prison term in Sweden. At Damascus airport, he was welcomed by his brother, who gave him a Syrian birth certificate and identity card. He was handed over to the Syrian security service. When he told the immigration police that he had been in possession of a Syrian passport, the police replied that no Syrian passport had been issued for him and that he had failed to report for military service. The complainant stated that he had travelled to Sweden from Beirut on a Lebanese “laissez passer passport”. The immigration police then informed the security service that he had served a prison sentence in Sweden for killing a Turkish Kurd and that the authorities in his home town Kamishli had requested his transfer to that town. (f) The Swedish authorities could not foresee that the complainant would be detained by the Syrian security service and later be convicted of a State crime by the Supreme State Security Court. Similarly, they could not anticipate the he would incriminate himself by informing the Syrian security guard during the flight to Damascus that he had 8