CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 State party does not underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with regard to the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation and especially in the region of northern Caucasus. The current situation in Chechnya, however, does not in itself suffice to establish that the general situation in the region is such that the deportation of the complainants would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention.9 Therefore, the State party contends that the removal of the complainants to the Russian Federation would only entail a breach of the Convention if they could show that they would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3. However, in the present case, the complainants have failed to substantiate their claims that they would run such a risk. 4.10 The State party observes that several provisions in the Swedish Aliens Act reflect the same principles as those laid down in article 3 of the Convention. Thus, the Swedish migration authorities apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act as the one applied by the Committee when examining subsequent complaints under the Convention. The fact that such a test has been applied in the present case is indicated by the reference made by the Swedish authorities in their decisions relating to the present case to chapter 4, sections 1, 2 and 2 (a) of the Aliens Act. Furthermore, pursuant to chapter 12, sections 1–3, of the Act, there may never be enforcement of the expulsion of an alien to a country where there are reasonable grounds to assume that he or she would be in danger of being subjected, inter alia, to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or to a country where he or she is not protected from being sent on to a country in which he or she would be at such risk. 4.11 The State party adds that its national authorities are in a good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to appraise the credibility of his or her claims. In the present case, the Migration Board and the Migration Court made thorough examination of the complainants’ case. The Board conducted individual interviews with all three complainants when they applied for asylum. The interviews lasted approximately two hours (first complainant), one and a half hours (second complainant) and two hours (third complainant). The purpose of the interviews was to give the complainants an opportunity to explain the reasons for their need for protection and clarify all the facts relevant to the Board’s assessment. The extensive interviews with the complainants were conducted in the presence of their legal counsel and an interpreter, whom the complainants confirmed that they understood well. Further, the complainants have argued their case in writing before the Board and the migration courts. Throughout the procedure regarding the complainants’ asylum request they were represented by a legal counsel. After the decision ordering the expulsion of the complainants gained legal force, the Board reviewed new circumstances invoked by the complainants. The decisions of the Board were appealed against, but were not overturned by the Migration Court. Against this background, the State party holds that it must be considered that the Migration Board and the migration courts had sufficient information, together with the facts and documentations in the case, to ensure that they had a solid basis for making a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment of the complainants’ needs for protection in Sweden. 4.12 In this connection, the State party recalls the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22,10 as well as its jurisprudence, in which it has stated that the Committee was not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body, 11 and that considerable weight would be given to findings of facts 9 10 11 6 See, for example, the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, I. v. Sweden, application No. 61204/09, 5 September 2013, para. 58. Para. 9. See, for example, communication No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 22 November 2006, para. 8.6.