CAT/C/41/D/332/2007 Page 5 3.2 The complainant challenges the reasoning of the State party’s migration authorities, related to the assessment of his position in the Musavat party. He submits that he had difficulties understanding the interpreter during both interviews before the Migration Board. 3.3 According to the complainant, the risk of him being persecuted and tortured in Azerbaijan is both personal and present. In his opinion, Swedish authorities never made a comprehensive investigation about his need for protection. The State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 23 May 2008 the State party commented on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On admissibility, it acknowledges that available domestic remedies have been exhausted. It maintains that the complainant’s assertion that he is at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of the Convention if deported to Azerbaijan fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. 4.2 On the merits, the State party recalls that Azerbaijan became a party to the Convention against Torture in 1996 and has made a declaration under article 22. It has been a member of the Council of Europe (CoE) since January 2001 and is a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights and other major international human rights instruments. The CoE monitors the human rights situation in the country, and some progress has been made. Criminal proceedings have been initiated and disciplinary measures taken against policemen and other government officials found guilty of human rights violations, and torture has been defined as a crime in the new Criminal Code. However, the State party admits that numerous human rights abuses still occur in Azerbaijan, including arbitrary detentions, beatings and torture of individuals in custody. 4.3 For the State party, several circumstances give reason to question the complainant’s allegations of ill-treatment. He told the Swedish migration authorities that he was released on bail, while he claims before the Committee that he was released on the condition that he would work for the Azerbaijani authorities. According to investigation initiated by the Swedish consulate in Baku, the complainant never was a member of the Musavat party and has never worked for it. He was not held in custody from 16 October 2003 to 1 July 2004. There is no information that the complainant committed any crime. According to information from Azerbaijani police authorities, the complainant is not wanted in Azerbaijan. The State party believes this information is correct. The complainant has provided no evidence that he was held in custody or mistreated and tortured by authorities in Azerbaijan. 4.4 The State party endorses the opinion of the Migration Board that the existence of any threats from party members is a matter for the law enforcement authorities to deal with. The applicant has not shown that it is probable that he cannot obtain protection from Azeri authorities. 4.5 The State party maintains that the complainant has not shown substantial grounds for believing that he will run a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 if deported to Azerbaijan. It recalls that in a previous case, the Committee took note of