CAT/C/70/D/915/2019 6.9 The complainant adds that his spouse received Instagram messages on 23 February 2019 threatening “consequences” if the complainant were to fail to return to the Russian Federation. The threats, including physical assault and disappearance of the complainant, continued thereafter. On 11 October 2019, the Georgian National Bureau of Enforcement recorded a statement by the spouse regarding the threats received. 6.10 The complainant requested that the Georgian authorities conduct an investigation into the threats and, on 13 March 2017, that the Russian authorities do the same. The Russian authorities rejected his request as unsubstantiated without having carried out any investigations on 17 March 2019. The Georgian authorities initiated an investigation, but the complainant does not believe that they carried it out seriously, despite jurisprudence establishing that a claim of a risk of torture requires an independent and rigorous scrutiny. Likewise, the examination of his asylum claim has not been rigorous. His claim was wrongly rejected as based on “mere suppositions” even though the documents produced duly substantiate the risk. The Georgian courts turned a blind eye to the human rights situation in the Russian Federation and did not carefully study the documents produced. In the extradition case, the Supreme Court limited its analysis to the assurances provided by the Russian authorities. Furthermore, it would be impossible and disproportionate to require undisputable evidence of a future event. 6.11 On 26 February 2020, the complainant reported that the Tbilisi Court of Appeal had rendered a final decision rejecting his appeal in the asylum proceedings that same day, enabling his immediate removal. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee notes that the Tbilisi Supreme Court rendered a final decision rejecting the complainant’s appeal in the asylum proceedings on 26 February 2020. It is therefore satisfied that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies, for the purposes of article 22 (4) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party argues that the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the rules of procedure. The State party claims that the complaint does not go beyond speculation, farfetched assumptions and meritless generalizations. It also claims that its authorities carefully examined the complainant’s personal circumstances and the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation, that they found his account to be inconsistent and incoherent on material points and that they concluded that his claim of a risk of persecution or ill-treatment lacked substance. The Committee observes that the complainant only submitted copies of alleged evidence after the State party had observed that the claims were not supported by any documentation or evidence even though the complainant was a former prosecutor. The Committee notes, in this regard, that the complainant has not refuted his inability during the asylum hearing to name the authors of the threats or to describe their motives or the contents of the threats. Despite the complainant’s assertion that the State party’s authorities failed to assess the alleged risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention owing to prison conditions in the Russian Federation, the Committee notes that the authorities considered these circumstances in both the asylum and the extradition proceedings and found no ground to grant asylum or to deny the extradition request. Further, the complainant’s arguments on the State party’s observations concerning the assurances provided by the Russian authorities contain no indication of a personal risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. The Committee moreover finds that the complainant’s assertions that the examination of his case was not serious or that he had no possibility for review of the expulsion decision lack substantiation. 8