7.  The applicants are a family of four, all Uzbek nationals who were born in 1960, 1970, 1998 and 2006 and are currently in Sweden. 8.  On 20 December 2005 the first three applicants arrived in Sweden and, on the following day, they applied for asylum and residence permits. The fourth applicant was born in January 2006 and joined the family’s request for asylum. In interviews with the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) as well as in written submissions, the applicants claimed essentially the following. In 1995 the first applicant had been arrested when the authorities had raided a mosque while he was there. After three days in solitary confinement, he had been released with a travel ban. Before trial in 1998, he had been arrested and detained for six months, and was then convicted for being a Muslim separatist. He had been granted clemency because his lawyer had presented him as being handicapped. He had been put on the authorities’ blacklist. On 13 May 2005 he had participated in a demonstration in Andijan as a member of Akrami, a non-political local organisation, when the police had opened fire against the demonstrators. He had been able to flee and to travel back to Tashkent by bus. Two days later the police had arrived at the applicants’ home and had arrested him in a brutal manner. He had been taken to the police station where he had been threatened and tortured with the purpose of extorting a confession, but he had refused. After four days, his parents had been able to obtain his release through bribery. He had, however, been prohibited from travelling anywhere. Immediately after release he had been admitted to hospital due to the injuries he had sustained, but had left shortly afterwards as he had been warned against staying. He had been too afraid to return home and had, with the help of an acquaintance, gone into hiding for a period of six months. Subsequently, the same acquaintance had arranged the family’s trip to Sweden. 9.  Moreover, the second applicant had also been persecuted and summoned to appear at the prosecutor’s office, where she had been questioned about the first applicant. During the interrogations she had been subjected to degrading treatment. Furthermore, her brother had been kept in prison for a long time and she had been informed that he would be released when he told the police where her family was hiding. After the arrest of the first applicant, the third applicant, who had been fragile from birth, had developed a fever and had stopped talking for several days. He had suffered from headaches and difficulties in concentrating during his initial stay in Sweden. 10.  The first applicant produced a copy of his driving licence, two employment books in original, belonging to him and the second applicant, issued by their employer in the Andijan region, and one summons in which he was called to appear as a witness. They also produced an undated copy of a medical certificate from the Clinic of Psychiatric Diseases in Tashkent which stated that the first applicant had been admitted to the hospital on 20 May 2005 complaining of headaches and dizziness, that he had been diagnosed with the after-effects of a head injury and that he had been released on 7 June 2005. The applicants further produced two posters of wanted persons issued by the Internal Affairs Administration in Tashkent. The posters showed photographs of persons wanted by the police after the events in Andijan on 13 May 2005. On the posters, the first applicant’s photograph and name appeared among others. 11.  On 25 March 2007 the Migration Board rejected the request. Although the applicants had not proved their identities, it accepted that it was probable that they were of Uzbek origin. It then considered that the first applicant did not risk persecution because of the incidents in 1995 and 1998, noting that he had been granted clemency. Next, the Board found the first applicant’s claims about how he had left Andijan after the demonstration in 2005 remarkable, noting that he alleged that he had been able to travel home by bus after the demonstration despite the roads having been closed. Moreover, it noted that he had claimed that he had been arrested after the demonstration because he had been convicted in 1998. The Board did not find this credible as it questioned that the police would have arrested someone whom they had not identified as a participant in the demonstration. It further considered that his statement concerning police torture in order to obtain a confession that Akrami had been responsible for the demonstration was not consistent with independent sources on the event. Against this background, the Board found that it was not likely that he had been present in Andijan at the time of the demonstrations. Turning to the documents he had produced, the Board considered that the posters of persons wanted for the events in Andijan had very low evidentiary value as the applicant’s photograph differed from the others in size, and the text and placing of the information about the applicant was inconsistent with that of the other wanted persons. Furthermore, it noted that the summons produced clearly stated that he had been called to appear before the authorities as a witness and not as a suspect. It also found it remarkable that the summons had been completed in Russian by an official Uzbek authority. Moreover, it noted that the authorities had not come for him in person but had sent the summons to him. 12.  The Board found that the second applicant had failed to substantiate her story as she had produced no documents in support of it and as she had been unable to recall, for example, how many times she had been interrogated. It found it questionable that she had not been aware of the first applicant’s involvement with Akrami, or what had happened during the demonstration. Moreover, the Board found that the fourth applicant was healthy and that the third applicant, who had both physical and social difficulties, had improved significantly as from the autumn of 2006. It further noted that the applicants had not produced any medical certificates to show that the third applicant needed medical treatment. Hence, in conclusion, the Board found that the applicants had failed to show that they were at risk of being persecuted if returned to Uzbekistan and thus found no reason to grant them leave to remain. 13.  The applicants appealed to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen), maintaining their claims and adding that during a search of their home in 2005 the police had taken most identification documents from them. However, their identities could be established through the documents produced. The first applicant then submitted that his detention in 1995 had primarily been invoked to explain how he had been placed on the authorities’ blacklist of suspected Islamists. Due to that he had also had difficulties finding a job in Tashkent for which reason he had started commuting to Andijan. Moreover, after the events in Andijan in 2005, the Uzbek regime’s persecution of suspected Islamic extremists had increased. The first applicant claimed that the police had been able to identify him after the demonstration because friends who had been arrested had given his name under torture. The police had also accused him of having encouraged people to demonstrate and of having been armed during the demonstration. He had only been released because he had bribed the police. As regards the posters of people wanted for the Andijan events, the first applicant claimed that they had probably been issued by the local police after he had left the country. Moreover, several names were not in alphabetical order. Since the summons had also been issued after he had left Uzbekistan, he had reason to believe that the authorities continued to have a special interest in him. The fact that they were in Russian was simply because many officials still preferred to use that language. He stressed that the family had left the country illegally, that he was sought by the authorities on suspicion of extremist crimes and risked 20 years’ imprisonment and torture. Furthermore, there were impediments to his deportation since the Uzbek authorities would arrest him upon arrival because he had applied for asylum in Sweden. 14.  The second applicant alleged that the police had suspected her of having been involved in the first applicant’s political activities, but she had only known that he had participated in several demonstrations and political meetings. In 1997 they had moved to Andijan because of their work there but they had kept their house in Tashkent, where they were registered, and went there once a week. After she had received a summons to appear before the prosecutor, she had been forced to sign a travel ban. Her brother had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, convicted of the same crime of which the first applicant had previously been accused. The third applicant stated that he visited a psychologist on a regular basis and that he was stressed and anxious. 15.  The first applicant produced a copy of a decision by the Ministry for Interior Affairs of Uzbekistan, dated 20 June 2005 and signed by two military officers. It stated that a search of the first applicant’s house in the city of Tashkent had resulted in the discovery of extremist religious material and six Kalashnikov cartridges and that he was considered to promote separatist opinions in order to destabilise the situation in the region. It further stated that he had disappeared and that he was wanted. 16.  The third applicant produced two medical certificates. The first, dated 23 November 2007, by a psychologist and a counsellor at the Child and Youth Psychiatric Centre (“BUP”) stated that the family had been in contact with the Centre since August 2007 and that the third applicant suffered from headaches, anxiety and learning and concentration difficulties. The second, dated 28 May 2008, by a child neurologist and assistant senior physician at a Neuropediatric Clinic, stated that the neurological examination of the third applicant showed evidence of a brain injury from birth and low learning ability and that his difficult situation both at school and at home had caused his headaches. 17.  On 12 December 2008 the Migration Court, after having held an oral hearing, rejected the applicants’ appeal. It first stated that, although the applicants had not presented proof of identification, they were most likely from Uzbekistan. However, due to the lack of identification documents, their identity could not be determined and for that reason, it could not be established whether the documents produced referred to the applicants. Moreover, due to the poor quality of the documents, they could not be regarded as having any significant value as evidence. The court then considered that the first applicant’s story about the events before and after the demonstration in 2005 had been vague and did not appear to show first‑hand experience. It also noted that, contrary to information that the first applicant had given, the second applicant had stated that he had participated in several demonstrations. Moreover, it observed that during the hearing before the court, the applicants had changed their story as regards, for example, how the first applicant had been identified by the police after the demonstration, details concerning his activities with Akrami, for how long the family had been persecuted and in which part of Uzbekistan the family had been living. The court found this to be an escalation of their asylum story in order to try to strengthen it and it also considered their stories to be marked by inconsistencies and contradictory information. Thus, they were not credible. As concerned the third applicant, the court found that his anxiety and learning disabilities had not improved much while in Sweden. Taking into account that he would be able to receive medical care in his home country, it considered that his psychosocial development and state of health were not such that the applicants could be granted residence permits on this ground. Having regard to all circumstances of the case, the court concluded that the applicants had failed to show that they were at risk of being persecuted or killed if returned to Uzbekistan and that there were no other grounds on which to grant them leave to remain. 18.  The applicants appealed against the judgment to the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen), maintaining their claims and adding that, according to international sources, failed asylum seekers needed luck to avoid being discovered upon return and their situation was very uncertain. Thus, there was a presumption that failed asylum seekers risked persecution if returned to Uzbekistan. The applicants further stressed that they had been ill-treated in Uzbekistan and still suffered from this. Moreover, the Migration Court had not properly examined all of their written evidence. 19.  On 15 April 2009 the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. 20.  The second, third and fourth applicants requested the Migration Board to re-examine their case and added to their earlier claims that the third applicant was suffering from severe depression and had been very sensitive and had shown symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. They also alleged that they had been informed that the first applicant had been accused of having started the disturbances that occurred on 13 May 2005 in Andijan and that charges had been brought against him. Thus, their need for protection had become even greater. 21.  On 28 May 2009 the Migration Board decided not to re-examine the applicants’ grounds for residence permits as they had not invoked any new circumstances of importance. Moreover, it found that there were no impediments to their deportation. 22.  The applicants lodged a new request for re-examination to the Migration Board and added to their previous claims that the first applicant had been a supervisor at a cotton plant in Andijan. He had taken his workers to the demonstration on 13 May 2005 where two of them had been badly injured and died. The deceased persons’ parents had reported the first applicant to the police, claiming that he had forced their children to attend the demonstration and that he had also organised secret meetings against the President and threatened to dismiss their children unless they participated in his actions against the President. Due to this, the first applicant alleged that he had been charged and a criminal case was pending against him. His brother-in-law, who had worked with him, had already been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment despite being innocent. The first applicant was also suspected of other crimes and had only just escaped being imprisoned. If returned, he would be killed immediately. 23.  On 16 June 2009 the Migration Board decided not to re-examine the applicants’ grounds for residence permits as the grounds invoked had in essential parts already been considered and the applicants had failed to give any reasons for why they had not invoked the new information before. Thus, there were no impediments to their deportation. 24.  On 28 July 2009, upon request by the applicants, the Acting President of the Third Section applied Rule 39 of the Rules of Court until further notice. On the following day, the Migration Board stayed the enforcement of the deportation order of the applicants until further notice. 25.  On 30 July 2009, the Migration Board sent a request to the Uzbek Embassy in Riga for the issue of travel documents for the applicants to facilitate their return. In its letter to the Embassy, the Migration Board stated that the applicants’ request for residence permits had been rejected and that they were obliged to leave Sweden. Since they did not have their passports, the Embassy was asked to assist in facilitating their return. Copies of the first applicant’s driving licence and employment book, the second applicant’s employment book and the third and fourth applicants’ birth certificates were appended as were three photos of each applicant. It would appear that no reply was received from the Uzbek Embassy. 26.  In June 2010 the applicants again lodged a request with the Migration Board for re-examination of their case due to new circumstances. While maintaining their earlier grounds, they referred to numerous international sources which indicated that failed asylum seekers who returned to Uzbekistan were at real risk of being arrested and interrogated, possibly also ill-treated. Moreover, since it was a criminal act according to Article 223 of the Uzbek Criminal Code to leave the country without an exit visa, as they had done, they would risk imprisonment on this basis as well. Since the first applicant had been involved in the demonstrations in Andijan and was wanted for crimes in connection to this, he was at even greater risk. He was also suspected of religious extremist crimes. Another new circumstance was that the first applicant had become a member of the opposition party Birdamlik in Sweden and had participated in three demonstrations in Sweden during 2010 against the Uzbek regime. He was registered on the party’s membership list in Sweden. Since there were Uzbek spies in Sweden, they were sure that the Uzbek authorities knew about his membership. They added that the second applicant’s brother was still imprisoned in Uzbekistan and that relatives of the applicants were still today visited by the authorities and asked about the applicants’ whereabouts. 27.  In December 2010 the applicants submitted to the Migration Board that the first applicant was no longer a member of Birdamlik. The party had started to publish information on internet, including photos of demonstrations, which worried the applicants. The applicants submitted a certificate from Birdamlik, dated 10 December 2010, which stated that the applicant had been a member since 2009 but had now left the party. Moreover, the applicants claimed that the first applicant’s parents had been visited by the authorities in Uzbekistan three to four times during the previous two months and been informed that the authorities knew about the first applicant’s activities and that he risked life-time imprisonment. However, if he returned voluntarily the sentence could be reduced to less than 20 years. The first applicant no longer dared to have any contact with his parents. 28.  On 21 December 2010 the Migration Board rejected the application for re-examination. It first noted that the first applicant’s activities in Birdamlik were unclear as he had not specified what he had done and that it was thus also unclear whether the Uzbek authorities knew about this. The first applicant’s claim that there were Uzbek spies in Sweden was his own speculation. Moreover, he had not been politically active before leaving Uzbekistan and he had now left the party. As concerned the information from international sources, the Board noted that the applicants could have invoked this earlier in the proceedings. In any event, it noted that the applicants had not shown that they had left their country illegally and that their credibility had previously been questioned by the Board and the Migration Court. In the Board’s view, it was more likely that the applicants had left the country legally with their own passports. Moreover, the Board considered it possible to return to Uzbekistan from Sweden, for example, via Russia or Kazakhstan from where Uzbeks did not need visas, without attracting the attention of the Uzbek authorities. Furthermore, the Board noted that it had not informed the Uzbek Embassy that the applicants were former asylum seekers. Since there were other reasons why the applicants might be in Sweden, such as for studies, work or family reasons, and the Migration Board was the central authority in Sweden for all migration issues, it was not unusual for persons to need the Migration Board’s help to obtain travel documents from their home country’s embassy. Also, due to Schengen cooperation, the fact that a Swedish authority assisted the applicants did not necessarily mean that they had been in Sweden all the time. The Board further observed that it was common for Uzbeks to work outside their country, even for long periods of time, and that this was accepted by the authorities. Thus, the Board concluded that no such new circumstances which could entail an impediment to the enforcement of the deportation order had been invoked. 29.  The applicants appealed to the Migration Court, maintaining their claims and adding that Birdamlik was prohibited in Uzbekistan and that its members were harassed. The first applicant had, among other things, participated in a demonstration in central Stockholm where he had been on hunger strike for three days. As concerned the invoked information from international sources, this dated from after March 2009 when their deportation order had gained legal force. Moreover, in their view, it was evident that the Uzbek authorities knew that the family had been asylum seekers in Sweden now that the Migration Board had contacted the Embassy. To assume otherwise was far-fetched, in particular as the family had left the country illegally in 2005 and having regard to relevant international country information. 30.  On 22 March 2011 the Migration Court rejected the appeal. It did not question that the first applicant had been a member of Birdamlik for a period of time but found that his activities in the party had been very limited and that he had not shown that it had come to the Uzbek’s authorities’ knowledge. The court then reviewed the international sources invoked and concluded that they showed that people who returned to Uzbekistan could be exposed to pressure and, in some case, serious abuse. However, they did not support the contention that all returnees risked such serious abuse that they should be granted residence permits. The court further considered that the fact that the Migration Board had contacted the Uzbek Embassy for travel documents did not necessarily mean that the embassy now knew that the applicants had applied for asylum in Sweden. It further noted that the applicants had not plausibly proved their identities. Thus, the court could not assume that the applicants’ correct identity information had been given to the Embassy. Furthermore, the court considered that the applicants could arrange for their return themselves, which they were actually responsible for doing, and that in such a case the Uzbek authorities need not find out where they had been or what they had done. In conclusion, the court found that the applicants had failed to show that they were of special interest to the Uzbek authorities or that they would risk serious abuse upon return. 31.  The applicants appealed to the Migration Court of Appeal which, on 13 May 2011, refused leave to appeal. 32.  To the Court, the applicants produced three more medical certificates, two dated September 2011, by a psychologist at BUP, and one by a family counsellor. The two by the psychologist stated that the applicants were suffering from their uncertain situation and were in poor health. The third applicant showed symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. The fourth applicant had been diagnosed as reacting to severe stress and problems in relation to her upbringing. 33.  The medical certificate by the family counsellor stated that the family had received counselling at a Family Care Centre between March/April 2006 and the end of 2007 due to concerns for the children because both parents were very stressed and depressed. The first applicant had a deep feeling of guilt due to what he had exposed his family to and was worried for his parents in Uzbekistan. He had recounted, in a very fragmented way, his imprisonment in his home country and the time before they had fled. The counsellor had felt that it had been too difficult for him to remember everything. The second applicant had suffered hair loss due to the stress, was very worried about the family’s situation, in particular the children, and was depressed. Both parents had been very afraid that someone from Uzbekistan would find out that they were in Sweden. They did not feel safe.