CAT/C/47/D/374/2009 in previous decisions that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal.”11 Furthermore, in exercising the Committee’s jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, considerable weight will be given to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned. However, the Committee is not bound by such findings; instead, it has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 12 9.6 The Committee notes the complainants’ claim that they run a risk of torture in Azerbaijan on account of S.M.’s mixed origin, which makes them a target for the authorities in their home country. It further notes their allegation that due to S.M.’s Armenian origins, the whole family was subjected to ethnically motivated persecution, and as a result they had been victims of beatings and persecution by neighbours, as well as State agents (police). Moreover, they claim that they had been detained, questioned, beaten and sexually assaulted (H.M.) by officers of the National Security Service, including at the airport upon their return from Sweden in August 2004, as well as during further interrogation. 9.7 The Committee observes that the complainants’ allegations of torture are corroborated by authoritative medical reports issued by the Crisis and Trauma Centre in Stockholm. In light of the above and taking into account the treatment inflicted on the complainants upon their return to Azerbaijan in August 2004 and general information available to the Committee, according to which a hostile attitude on the part of the general public towards ethnic Armenians living in Azerbaijan is still widespread,13 persons of Armenian origin are at risk of discrimination in their daily life,14 they are harassed or bribes are requested by low-ranking officials when they apply for passports and they often conceal their identity by legally changing the ethnic designation in their passports, the Committee considers that the complainants’ return to Azerbaijan would expose them to a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that their deportation to Azerbaijan would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 10. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, considers that the return of S.M. and H.M. to Azerbaijan would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 11. In conformity with rule 118 (former rule 112), paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee wishes to be informed, within 90 days, on the steps taken by the State party to respond to this decision. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 11 12 13 14 See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3; No. 285/2006, A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6; No. 322/2007, Njamba v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.4. Committee’s general comment No. 1 (note 10 above), para. 9. See the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the fifth and sixth reports of Azerbaijan (CERD/C/AZE/CO/6), para. 15. Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Report on Azerbaijan (23 March 2011), para. 98. 13