CAT/C/47/D/374/2009 being mistreated, about his whereabouts in Sweden and the purpose of his stay, as well as about his parents and was told that the police were “waiting for them.” 2.10 On an unspecified date, the complainants’ counsel filed an application for reexamination of their case to the Migration Board, alleging that new circumstances had emerged that constituted obstacles to the enforcement of the deportation order, namely the large publicity received by their case in Sweden and the Azerbaijani authorities’ interest in the family, as had been shown by the visit of their son to Azerbaijan. A.M.'s social ties to Sweden after seven years, and new psychiatric reports confirming that the complainants’ mental health had not improved, were invoked as additional obstacles to the enforcement of the deportation order. On 3 July 2008, the Migration Board rejected their request for reexamination on the grounds that the circumstances invoked only constituted amendments or modifications to their previous submissions in their asylum applications. On 27 August 2008, the Migration Court upheld this decision. The complaint 3.1 The complainants claim that their forcible deportation to Azerbaijan would amount to a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention. In particular, they underline the torture and ill-treatment they suffered upon their return to Azerbaijan, following their first deportation in 2004, as well as the ethnically motivated persecution they suffered before leaving the country in 2002. 3.2 They further claim that the Swedish authorities only focused on minor inconsistencies instead of duly considering their claim of persecution due to their mixed origin. Even if they have overestimated the time they spent in custody at the airport, forgot the dates of summons to KBG or were unable to explain how smugglers could provide them with passports, these factors are not sufficient to deny their traumatizing experience or the injuries they sustained. Their account of the facts is corroborated by medical reports and there is a well-founded fear of repeated torture and humiliating treatment upon a second return. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 11 December 2009, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It submits that S.M., H.M. and their daughter, A.M., first arrived in Sweden on 29 March 2002 and applied for asylum on 2 April 2002. They stated that they originated from Nagorno-Karabakh province of Azerbaijan, which they had left in 1998 and had since lived as internally displaced persons following the persecution they endured because S.M. has the appearance and the accent of an Armenian. On this account, he has been subjected to beatings, degrading treatment and had to quit his job because of his mixed ethnic origin. H.M. was raped several times and beaten on one occasion, also due to the family’s mixed origin. On one occasion, she was detained for three days after a dispute in a convenience store. The complainants invoked that there were humanitarian reasons for granting their daughter a residence permit. They also stated that they had not been politically active. 4.2 The first asylum application was rejected by the Migration Board on the grounds that State-sanctioned discrimination or persecution of Armenians does not occur in Azerbaijan and the general situation of citizens belonging to this ethnic group cannot, as such, constitute grounds for asylum. It found that it had not been substantiated that the complainants would be subjected to persecution if they returned to their home country. The health problems invoked by the complainants were not so severe as to warrant suspension of the expulsion order against them. The complainants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board, which upheld the Migration Board’s decision in March 2004. The refusal-of-entry order was enforced on 19 August 2004. The complainants subsequently submitted a new 5