CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 a country have previously tortured a person, then it must be taken as a given that the torture will be repeated. The above judgement had been addressed by the Migration Board in an internal guideline, signed by the than acting Head of Legal Affairs. In another internal guideline, the Head of Legal Affairs had stated that asylum seekers should be referred to forensic medical experts for examination of torture-related injuries. The first complainant finally reiterates that his brother had been killed in custody of the Russian authorities and that the whereabouts of his nephew, arrested in 2011 were unknown; considering the human rights record of the Government of the Russian Federation it was not unreasonable to fear that he had also been killed. In summary, the complainants maintain that there had been a clear pattern of personal harassment and persecution and that there were substantial grounds for believing that the risk that the first complainant would be subjected to torture was real, imminent and highly probable. State party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 In its submission dated 19 January 2015, the State party submits, in relation to the complainants’ contentions about the current general human rights situation in the Russian Federation, that information regarding the human rights situation in the Russian Federation can be found in recent reports and states its assumption that the Committee is well aware of the general human rights situation in that country, including the situation in Northern Caucasus. The State party does not wish to 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 North Caucasus; however, it maintains that the current situation in Chechnya does not, in itself, suffice to establish that the general situation in the region is such that an expulsion of the complainants would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention.16 Hence, the State party contends that the expulsion 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. 6.2 The State party would also like to reiterate that neither the Migration Board nor the Migration Court have questioned the veracity of the first complainant’s claims regarding torture. A medical investigation of these claims has therefore not been deemed necessary. Notwithstanding this conclusion, the State party holds, as the Migration Board and the Migration Court did, that the fact that the first complainant was exposed to torture in 2007 is not in itself sufficient to plausibly demonstrate that he or his family would risk being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon return to their home country. 6.3 The State party considers that a number of factors give cause to question the veracity of the complainants’ claim that they would risk being subjected to torture in violation of article 3 of the Convention upon return to the Russian Federation. In that respect, the State party agrees with the assessment made by the Migration Board and the Migration Court that the complainants’ accounts contain contradictory information and conflict with generally known facts about the complainants’ country of origin. 6.4 In summary, and with reference to what has been stated above and in the State party’s initial observations, the State party holds that the complainants have not plausibly demonstrated that the Russian Federation authorities were interested in them or that if returned to their home country they would risk being subjected to treatment constituting grounds for protection. Hence, the State party maintains that, as has been held by the 16 14 The State party refers to e.g. the European Court of Human Rights, I v. Sweden, application No. 61204/09, judgement of 5 September 2013, para. 58.