CAT/C/38/D/270&271/2005 Page 7 September 2001 near the “28 May” underground station, but according to the Report, no such manifestation took place. 4.9 The same Embassy Report of 16 February 2004 highlighted the results of an investigation into documents submitted specifically with respect to Y. K.’s case. As to the police summons, the report states that there are no indications that any criminal case or other criminal proceedings have been instituted against Y. K. The documents contain formal and other errors and deviations in comparison with authentic police summons issued by the Azerbaijani police authorities. According to applicable rules and regulations, police summons have to be endorsed by a special stamp belonging to the police department of the Khatai district. Such a stamp is only used by the head of the police department who signs a document. In this case, information concerning full name, rank and position of the person who signed the document is missing. It is stated in the document that the summoned person should report to investigator Jabarov S. But no further details are provided. 4.10 The same report of 16 February 2004, highlighted the results of an investigation into documents submitted specifically with respect to E. R. K.’s case, which included a letter stating that he would be reported to a court and a summons, both were alleged to have emanated from the police department of the Khatai district. According to the report, the letter of 13 December 2002 is not registered at the police department in the Khatai district and has an unknown reference number. It appears to be a kind of summons but a letter-head belonging to a police agency is not used on summons and they are not sent in envelopes. The police investigator who is alleged to have signed the letter, Mr. Jafarov, did not serve at the police department of the Khatai district in 2002. As to the alleged police summons, the report states that the rank and position of the officer who signed the document should be, but is not, indicated on the summons. According to the summons, if the complainant does not comply with it he shall be punished under Article 298 of the Criminal Code. However, this article actually refers to the punishment imposed in the event that a person refuses to testify in criminal proceedings. The police investigator who is alleged to have signed the letter, Mr. Jafarov, did not serve at the police department of the Khatai district at the time the summons was issued. There is also an incorrect stamp marked on the summons. 4.11 The complainants raised objections to the findings of the Embassy Report on several grounds upon which the Swedish Embassy in Ankara was requested to comment. In a further report of 16 June 2005, the Embassy explained that it normally uses external expertise and that the persons chosen are independent of the authorities and political parties in Azerbaijan. It shares the view of the Government that the identities of the persons are not disclosed to the Azerbaijani authorities or otherwise to the public to prevent them from being the subject of threats or physical abuse. The Embassy exercises great caution in selecting suitable persons to assist it, and due to security concerns and the future possibilities of obtaining expert advice in similar cases, it refrains from disclosing the identity of the sources used in this matter. As to the documents invoked, the Embassy had already conducted a thorough examination and concluded that they were false. 4.12 The Embassy’s Report also underlined the contradictory information concerning E. N. K.’s membership and political activities within the ADP. When the Embassy conducted the initial investigation in April 2004, there were no indications that E. N. K. was a member of the ADP. In February 2005, in a meeting in Baku between representatives of the Embassy and Mr. A. Shahbazov, the Secretary General of the ADP, the latter stated that E. N. K. was