CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 They refer to a statement of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,12 describing “a climate of pervading fear”, disappearances of government opponents and human rights defenders, reprisals against the families of suspected fighters and intimidation of the media and civil society, all in an atmosphere of “personalization of power” in Chechnya. They further note that the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has also called for accountability and has referred to13 some serious setbacks, including murders, intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders and investigative journalists and independent media, and apparent serious miscarriages of justice during her mission to the Russian Federation in 2011. They lastly refer to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2014, in which a similar litany of abuse is described.14 They maintain that this is the background against which their history must be judged. 5.2 The complainants reiterate that the first complainant was an active resistance fighter in the 1994-1996 conflict; that following the renewal of the hostilities in 1999 he continued to support the resistance by delivering food to partisans. They further submit that the first complainant’s brother was subjected to severe repeated beatings and then killed while in custody in 2003, because he was suspected of being active in the resistance; that the first complainant had been an outspoken critic of the regime and had been under intermittent surveillance by the authorities; that in 2007 he had been arrested and suffered beatings and torture; that, after his release, he continued to deliver food and supplies to the partisans; that, following explosions in Grozny in 2011, his nephew had been arrested and the first complainant was afraid that he would be identified as a suspect, because his nephew would be tortured and would disclose information about his activities to the authorities. They maintain that the first complainant’s decision to flee to Ingushetia was based on the above. 5.3 With regard to the contradictions in their statements, the complainants submit that these were minor inconsistencies that did not diminish their credibility and that modern research on testimonials and witness statements has established that a testimony given repeatedly with no inconsistencies whatsoever is a sign of “learning by rote” and therefore of diminished credibility. 15 Concerning their identity, the complainants submit that the documents presented by them do not meet Western standards, but that the above has no bearing on the basic issue of their identity. Regarding the summonses, the complainants submit that it had been established a long time ago that “this is how such summonses look” and that it was unclear why the State party states the obvious, “unless the purpose is to somehow insinuate that these papers are not genuine”. 5.4 The complainants submit that their last place of residence cannot be determined from their identity papers, but maintain that the above has no bearing on their asylum claim. They refer to a letter from UNHCR (copy submitted) stating that it was not reasonable for a Chechen asylum seeker to seek refuge elsewhere in the Russian Federation. They further submit that the first complainant was beaten and tortured by the authorities in the Russian Federation. The State party has accepted that testimony, but then “chose to ignore its responsibilities as defined not only by its own internal documents, but also by international legal precedents”. They refer to a judgement of 9 March 2010 of the European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden (application No. 41827/07), stating that, if the authorities in 12 13 14 15 The complainants refer to a news item published at the website of the Council of Europe on 22 June 2010, available at http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-EN.asp?newsid=2970&lang=2. The complainants refer to a news item of 23 February 2011 on the High Commissioner’s mission to Russia, entitled “Human rights chief calls for accountability on her mission to the Russia”. Available from www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/HCMissionToRussia.aspx. The complainants refer to www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/russia. The complainants refer to B. Uttl, N. Ohta, and A.L. Siegentahler (eds.), Memory and Emotion: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Singapore, Blackwell Publishing), pp. 59-82. 13