CAT/C/47/D/374/2009 filed with the Court, including a letter from UNHCR in Stockholm, stating that its 2003 Guidelines on Azerbaijan were still valid and that a returned Armenian would be at risk of being pressurized by the security services.1 The Migration Board opposed the appeal, arguing that UNHCR’s guidelines applied to Armenians and mixed families, whereas S.M.’s family did not belong to this category. Another document issued by UNHCR in Baku had been submitted for the first time to the migration authorities. 2.7 On 7 September 2007, the Migration Court rejected the complainants' appeal on the grounds that the medical certificates were not sufficiently conclusive with regard to the illtreatment alleged, and that the alleged assaults were the result of actions by individuals, not by State agents. The Migration Court further questioned the mixed ethnicity of the family on the grounds that the children’s birth certificates stated that both parents were registered as ethnic Azeri in Azerbaijan. Furthermore, the Court noted that from 1976-1996, S.M. had worked at Baku airport and that in 2000, he had acquired a driving license, both events indicating that he did not face any problems with the authorities because of his mother’s Armenian origins. Moreover, the family had made contact with three different schools and the Ministry of Education to enrol their daughter, and that this showed the absence of persecution by the authorities. The Court stated that the opinions submitted by UNHCR and Amnesty International did not prove State-sanctioned persecution in Azerbaijan or that S.M.’s family was persecuted; it also pointed to a number of inconsistencies in the complainants’ testimonies. However, the complainants note that the judgement by the Migration Court was not handed down unanimously; one judge had written a dissenting opinion in their favour. 2.8 The complainants lodged an appeal with the Migration Court of Appeal, arguing that the Migration Court did not give due consideration to the medical reports issued by the experts on torture and that it did not take into account the expert country information from UNHCR and Amnesty International. On 3 January 2008, leave to appeal was not granted by the Migration Court of Appeal. Their deportation was scheduled for 12 June 2008. Since that date, S.M. and H.M. have gone into hiding. Their daughter has been placed in foster care and attends school in Sweden. 2.9 The complainants further submit that their case received large publicity in the mass media in Sweden. Several articles have been published. In October 2007, their daughter’s classmates organized a manifestation against the deportation order. In May 2008, the Bishop wrote an open letter to the Director General of the Migration Board. Most of the publicity around their family occurred after the judgment of the Migration Court and in the weeks before their scheduled deportation. They claim, therefore, that the publicity given to their case could increase the risk that they would be suspected by the Azerbaijani authorities as being enemies of the regime. Moreover, in 2008, when one of their sons travelled to Azerbaijan to obtain a document, he was questioned at the airport, without 1 4 The document dated 22 May 2007 states that “the situation of ethnic Armenians residing in Azerbaijan has not improved since 2002. Section V-2 of the UNHCR’s position paper International Protection Considerations Regarding Azerbaijani Asylum-Seekers and Refugees, dated September 2003, remains therefore valid and is applicable to the current situation. With regard to return of asylum-seekers of ethnic Armenian or mixed ethnicity, these cases might be at high risk upon arrival back in Azerbaijan. As explained in the guidelines regarding Azerbaijani asylum-seekers, the majority of the Armenians living in Azerbaijan conceal their identity. It is doubtful that they may be accepted back to Azerbaijan, or if accepted, they are, in UNHCR’s opinion, at high risk of being pressurized by the Security Services or treated without sympathy by the majority of the population. Any deportee, upon return, is referred to the officer of the National Security Ministry based at the airport for identity check and questioning […] if necessary, the deportee is referred to the Ministry of National Security for further questioning.”