CAT/C/40/D/309/2006 Page 8 governmental organisations continue to receive reports of torture, particularly in police lockups.7 State party’s supplementary observations 6.1 On 25 February 2008, the State party submits that its limited reply herewith should not be taken to mean that it accepts the parts of the complainant’s observations that it does not address here, and maintains its position stated in its observations of 13 September 2007. As to the medico-legal and psychiatric certificates that have been invoked in support of the complainant, the State party submits that, as this is new documentation it has not been assessed by the Swedish migration authorities. In addition, the complainant has not offered any explanation as to why he did not undergo the examinations in question at an earlier date. It finds that the conclusion in the certificates offers weak support for his claim of past abuse, particularly in light of its conclusion that “repeated external blunt force trauma has been reported which may be partly verified by examination. The result of the examination may possibly support his report of assault and torture.” The State party maintains that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim about past abuse. Complainant’s supplementary observations 6.2 On 18 April 2008, the complainants provided a supplementary submission, in which they state that it is undisputed that the medical certificates have not been invoked before or assessed by the Swedish migration authorities. They submit that the competence to decide whether or not to conduct a full torture investigation rests with the Migration Board. Even though the Migration Board did not contest the complainant’s claim that he had been subjected to serious physical abuse, the issue of whether or no the author had been tortured and the consequences thereof for him were not considered at all. Hence, in the complainant’s view, the Swedish authorities held the opinion that the author’s experience of past abuse lacked relevance when assessing the complainants need for asylum and protection. The complainants were surprised when they learnt the State party’s “new” position on 13 September 2007, that the complainant had failed to substantiate his claim about having been subjected to abuse in the past. It was in order to substantiate his claim that the complainant considered it necessary to undergo a complete torture investigation. Thus, it was the State party’s contention that caused the complainant to submit new documents. If the State party had not “revised the assessment made by the domestic authorities”, there would have been no reason for the author to invoke new documents before the Committee. The complainant contests the State party’s conclusion that the reports in question offer weak support for his claims and sets out the findings of the reports. He also attaches a statement, dated 17 April 2008, from Reporters Without Borders, which refers to him, stating that he was described as far back as 19 December 2001, as a politically active journalist for a party of the opposition in Azerbaijan and supports his asylum claim. 7 To support his claims he provides the following reports : Reports from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture in press release on 6 March 2007 “UN rights expert voices concern about press freedom in Azerbaijan” ; Information from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, dated 9 March 2007 and 20 February 2007; a Report from Amnesty International, dated 24 January 2007; Human Rights Watch, Crushing Dissent of January 2004, Events of 2006, and World Report 2007; Reporters without boundaries 1 February 2007, 20 July 2007, and 14 November 2007.