CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 registered a private company on 11 December 2008, and a summons to appear in court on 18 July 2011 inviting him to present a receipt or a similar document as proof of payment (no further details are provided). As far as the State party is aware, the complainants have not submitted the second document in the proceedings before the Swedish migration authorities. 4.25 In this regard, the State party notes that the complainants have not submitted any written documentation in support of their claim that the first complainant has been prosecuted. The State party contends that the complainants have failed to substantiate the claim that the first complainant is at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention owing to his business activities. It also reiterates that they have failed to substantiate the claim that they are at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention owing to their political activities and their latest submission to the Committee does not alter this assessment. 4.26 In summary, the State party maintains that the present communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure or, in the alternative, that the present communication reveals no violation of the Convention on the merits. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 In reply to the State party’s observations, on 25 July 2013, the complainants firstly submit that the second complainant is in a position to present new information on her criminal case in Belarus, notably that she is now able to present material showing that she is under investigation for a serious weapon offence. The complainants provide a copy of a statement of the second complainant’s lawyer in Belarus. They further note it has not been possible to obtain this document earlier as, in the absence of the second complainant from Belarus, the only possibility for concluding a contract with a lawyer — an absolute requirement according to the Belarusian procedural law for the lawyer to be able to represent officially the client — would be through a third person. No one was willing to undertake this assignment and conclude a contract with a lawyer. Furthermore, the second complainant feared that her son who lives in Minsk could be persecuted if a lawyer was engaged to inquire into her case. On the basis of these circumstances and evidence, the complainants have made a new submission to the Migration Board. The second complainant maintains that the communication is admissible as the complainants’ assertions do achieve the minimum level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. Furthermore, the new material submitted confirms that she is still of interest for the Belarusian authorities and personally at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Belarus. The letter from her lawyer in Belarus shows that she is facing long-term imprisonment in Belarus. There are substantial grounds to believe that she is also in danger of being subjected to torture, notably because she is charged for a crime she has never committed; her criminal case is politically motivated and she has been subjected to torture in the past. 5.2 As concerns the merits of the communication, the second complainant maintains her claim that she was subjected to torture by Belarusian police officers in 2006, which is confirmed by a medical report submitted to the Committee. The second complainant alleges that, during her interview with the Migration Board, she made a clear statement to this effect, yet it was omitted in the minutes taken by the Migration Board officer. Instead of torture, in the minutes it was recorded that she was subjected to abuse. Therefore, the second complainant argues that the fact that she was tortured was not taken into account by the Migration Board. She notes that the Committee should evaluate the fact that she was not only abused but tortured, and that her claim of torture does not lack credibility, contrary to 11