CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 However, during the investigation held by the Migration Board the first complainant recounted that he and his family were at home and asleep when their neighbour, early in the morning of 7 September 2011, told them that there were military vehicles outside the nephew’s house. The first complainant then went to his nephew’s house to find out what had happened, but the nephew had already been taken away and the first complainant returned home. During the oral hearing before the Migration Court, the first complainant however gave a third version of the events of 7 September 2011 in which the dates of 4 and 5 September were never mentioned. The first complainant then claimed that he did not return home after having been in his nephew’s house. Instead he went from the house straight to the village centre and from there he took a taxi to a friend’s house in Ingushetia. In the State party’s view, the above-mentioned inconsistencies negatively affect the credibility of the first complainant’s account. 4.26 In addition, the first complainant has submitted inconsistent information concerning how and when he obtained the telephone number of a man who might be able to help him. Before the Migration Board, he claimed to have acquired the telephone number through phone calls made from home after he had returned from his nephew’s house. However, before the Migration Court, he stated that he received the telephone number from a taxi driver in the village centre, where he went after the visit to his nephew’s house. 4.27 Furthermore, the second complainant has also submitted contradictory accounts of the events of 7 September 2011. Before the Migration Board, she stated that the first complainant came back after having been in his nephew’s house and that he then went to the village centre. However, during the oral hearing before the Migration Court, she held that she also went to the nephew’s house, where she met her husband, who went from there to the village centre. The State party agrees with the assessment made by the Migration Court that it seems strange that neither the first nor the second complainant were able to clearly remember the events of the day in question, in particular as these events took place on the same day and as they were alleged to have been so dramatic that the first complainant had to flee his home, leaving his wife and three children behind. The fact that the first and second complainants’ accounts in this respect are both internally contradictory and differ considerably from each other, in the State party’s opinion, adversely affects the credibility of the complainants’ accounts. 4.28 Moreover, the second complainant has submitted varying accounts regarding the sale of their house. She stated before the Migration Board that the house was bought by an intermediary, who buys houses cheap and then resells them at a higher price. However, before the Migration Court the second complainant instead stated that the house was bought by a man named Hussein, who let her and the children remain in the house until they moved to the first complainant’s friend in Ingushetia. 4.29 Furthermore, during the asylum investigation carried out by the Migration Board, the first complainant answered the question of whether he was wanted by the authorities throughout the Russian Federation only by saying that he probably was. In a subsequent written submission, however, he stated that a friend of his had found out that the first complainant was wanted by the federal authorities when he saw a poster with the first complainant’s photograph on it, as early as 20 February 2012, i.e. when the first complainant claimed that he was still in his country of origin. The State party therefore finds the first complainant’s statements to be contradictory in this respect. 4.30 Furthermore, a large part of the complainants’ submissions have consisted of their own conclusions, for example, the claim that the first complainant was filmed by a surveillance camera when driving into Grozny and the claim that the first complainant’s nephew gave his name to the authorities after having been tortured. These claims have not been substantiated by any objective information. In addition, the statements made by the complainants during the national asylum process are in several respects neither reasonable 11