CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 nor plausible. If the police authority did indeed suspect that the first complainant’s car had been used in connection with acts of terrorism, it does not appear reasonable for them to have burned the car when the house was searched. Furthermore, it does not seem reasonable that the police authority, when they arrested the first complainant’s nephew, did not visit the complainants’ house to arrest the first complainant as well, given that they lived only a few hundred metres apart. The State party notes that, if threats had been made against the first complainant by the authorities, it would have seemed reasonable for him to have warned his family and for the complainants to have fled their home together immediately, in particular as the first complainant has claimed to have been persecuted on previous occasions. 4.31 The State party also submits that the information cited in the case shows that neither the first complainant nor any member of his family had been subjected to any form of treatment constituting grounds for protection after 2007. In the light of the above, the Migration Court considered that the complainants had not plausibly demonstrated that the domestic authorities were interested in them or that if returned to their home country they would risk being subjected to treatment constituting grounds for protection. 4.32 In summary, the State party maintains that several aspects of the complainants’ claims are not plausible as the complainants have altered their statements during the proceedings and their claimed grounds for asylum contain contradictory elements. Thus, the complainants’ claims are not credible and the circumstances invoked by the complainants are not sufficient to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Accordingly, the enforcement of the expulsion order would, under the present circumstances, not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Since the complainants’ claim under article 3 fails to attain the basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded. 4.33 Concerning the merits, the State party reiterates that the present communication reveals no violation of the Convention. Complainants’ comments 5.1 In their submission dated 6 October 2014, the complainants submit that the State party’s observations are at odds with reports on the human right situation in the Russian Federation, and in particular with the report of the Department for International Law, Human Rights and Treaty Law of the Swedish Foreign Office.11 The latter states that the most serious violations of human rights still occur in the Northern Caucasus; that in the name of the fight against terrorism abuses are inflicted on the civilian population in the form of torture, arbitrary arrests and kidnappings; that there are unconfirmed reports of political murders and disappearances sanctioned by the authorities; that security forces assaults on the civilian population continued, as a rule without judicial consequences; that few victims dare to step forward due to fear of reprisals; and that it is therefore difficult to obtain reliable statistics on crimes constituting violations against human rights in Chechnya. They submit that the report describes a country that routinely abuses detainees, harasses those who dare to step forward and where justice for victims and accountability are non-existent. The complainants maintain that the State party’s analysis of the supposed change in the nature of the conflict was “spurious or irrelevant” and that, according to the former Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg, there is an atmosphere of terror in Chechnya. They maintain that opining who is at risk and who is not “is an intellectual exercise that bears no relationship to the realities on the ground”. 11 12 The complainants provide a link to the report, available only in Swedish.