CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 explanation for the above-mentioned inconsistencies, which therefore adversely affect the credibility of their account. 4.22 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 not been deemed necessary. The State party agrees with the Migration Board and the Migration Court 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. The State party finds it important to emphasize that, as the Migration Board has found, the first complainant admits to having lived in Chechnya after 2007 without claiming to have been subjected to any specific threats until late 2011. Moreover, as stated by the Migration Court, in assessing the need for protection, the assessment must be based on the current security conditions, taking into account relevant information on the applicant’s country of origin. Available country information shows that the conflict in Chechnya has changed in recent years. According to reports, the current Chechen insurgents are no longer fighting for the independence of Chechnya from the Russian Federation, but rather for the formation of a pan-Caucasian Islamic State based on sharia law.10 Thus, as has been stated above, the authorities are primarily interested in insurgents who are currently involved in fighting, and are no longer showing interest in insurgents who have not been active in recent years. In the light of the above, the State party agrees with the assessment of the Migration Board and the migration courts that the first complainant is currently not at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention on those grounds. 4.23 Furthermore, the first complainant has submitted two summonses for him for police interviews as a suspect. According to the first complainant, the summonses were sent to the complainants’ former home in Chechnya. The new owner of the house gave the summonses to the first complainant’s sister, who then sent them to the complainant in Sweden. The State party agrees with the view held by the Migration Board and the Migration Court that the summonses are not in themselves sufficient to plausibly demonstrate the complainants’ need for protection. In this respect, the State party notes, firstly, that the summonses are of a simple nature and therefore of low probative value; secondly, that the summonses do not state which offence he is suspected of; and, thirdly, the summonses cannot be linked to the first complainant personally as he has not plausibly demonstrated his identity. 4.24 As the complainants have not plausibly demonstrated their need for protection by the written evidence cited, the Swedish Migration Board and the migration courts have assessed whether the complainants’ oral submissions have plausibly demonstrated their need for protection in Sweden. In this regard, the State party notes that, when assessing the credibility of an asylum account, emphasis is normally given to the coherence of the story and the absence of internal contradictions. Furthermore, the circumstances cited must not contradict generally known facts. Moreover, it is important that the essential features of the story remain unchanged in the course of the asylum proceedings before the different authorities. 4.25 The State party submits that the Migration Board and the Migration Court have not deemed the complainants’ grounds for asylum credible as their accounts of the events of 7 September 2011 were inconsistent. For example, when applying for asylum, the first complainant claimed to have been at a relative’s home at the time of his nephew’s arrest. He further stated that he subsequently left the house on the night of 4 or 5 September 2011. 10 10 The State party refers to Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Temanotat Tsjetsjenia: Tsjetsjenske myndigheters reaksjoner mot opprørere og personer som bistår opprører, pp. 5 and 1416, and Temanotat Tsjetsjenia: Sikkerhetssituationen.