CAT/C/38/D/270&271/2005 Page 9 This is considered insufficient time to conduct a thorough and satisfactory investigation of the complainants’ reasons for applying for asylum, particularly bearing in mind that the Aliens Appeal Board relies on the same information. Because these interviews were held in question and answer mode, and while recognising that they had an opportunity to make comments upon the minutes subsequent to their interviews, the complainants claim that they were unable to give a thorough and complete description regarding the events preceding their flight from Azerbaijan. 5.2 The complainants deny the State party’s claim that the Migration Board and the Aliens Appeal Board applied the same kind of test as the Committee in considering these complaints. According to the complainants this is clear from the importance attached to the report from the Swedish Embassy in Ankara. The evidence presented by the complainants against these conclusions has not been commented upon in the State party’s examination. Although both brothers rely on E. N. K.’s case to demonstrate a real and personal risk to them, their cases are not limited to the facts of his case. The fact that they were harassed, threatened, and physically abused and detained (in the case of Y. K. only) confirms that risk. The complainants note that the State party agrees that the human rights situation in Azerbaijan raises legitimate concerns. 5.3 As to the Embassy report, the complainants submit that making such inquiries of Embassies often involve substantial risk to reveal the identity of the asylum applicant, thus creating a risk to him/her and their families and refers in this regard to an advisory opinion on this issue from UNHCR5. In the complainants’ view, the State party’s claim that enquiries were made without disclosing their identities or the identity of their brother E. N. K. is unreasonable. In order to obtain the acquired information a person must specify to the authorities concerned which person he wishes to have information regarding. It is also reasonable to assume that the person or persons who conduct these investigations are well known to the Azerbaijani authorities. 5.4 The complainants deny that they falsified any documents and submit that they lack the means and necessary legal expertise to make any comments upon what is asserted in the Embassy’s report. However, they do submit that the objections regarding the documents are exclusively related to alleged formal errors. For example, the design of a warrant was said not to match current procedures but no details on a correct design were provided. Also, the domestic authorities chose to believe an anonymous source rather than the complainant’s evidence that a demonstration had taken place on 8 September 2001. In addition, the complainants submit that they are not in a position to comment on the qualifications of those who undertook the investigation. 5.5 The complainants submit that the State party left out relevant information in its account of the Embassy Report of 16 June 2005. Mr. Shahbazov, two weeks after the meeting with the migration attaché in February 2005 (see para. 4.12), wrote an official letter in which he stated that E. N. K. was an active member of the party and is wanted by the police department in Azerbaijan and that he risks persecution and arrest upon return. This letter was submitted to the Aliens Appeal Board. The Embassy should have considered the fact that the APD has over 40,000 members and thus it would be unreasonable to expect the party’s leadership to have specific knowledge concerning individual members, even prominent members. Neither 5 UNHCR Advisory Opinion, Case number 1061/04, Dated 24 September 2004.