CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 the State party’s assessment. She contends that by submitting a medical statement that she was subjected to torture which the Migration Board disregarded, she has fulfilled the burden of proof requirement. 5.3 Furthermore, the complainants challenge the State party’s argument that there is an absence of a present or personal risk for them to be subjected to torture, as the second complainant was subjected to torture in 2006 and the risk of this happening again is still present owing to the couple’s recent activities. They claim that they are suspected by the police in Minsk of organizing public disorder since a demonstration in 2010. They allege they have submitted letters from the police to the Migration Board in support of the fact that they are of interest to the Belarusian authorities. The Migration Board has disregarded these letters since they lacked information on the kind of crime of which the second complainant is suspected. The complainants contend that the current practice in many countries, especially totalitarian ones, is such that calls from the police would not contain any information on the charges to be anticipated. They further maintain that the Migration Board has completely disregarded all the written evidence submitted by the second complainant. 5.4 The complainants note that the documents showing that the second complainant is under investigation for a weapon offence in Belarus make it clear that she risks up to seven years’ imprisonment. Moreover, such charges could be easily classified as a terrorist crime in Belarus. 5.5 In conclusion, the complainants maintain that the present communication and their claims are admissible, well-founded and reveal that their expulsion to Belarus would constitute a violation of the Convention. State party’s further information 6.1 On 15 April 2014, the State party submitted further information. It notes that its brief clarifications regarding the complainants’ comments should not be taken as meaning that the State party accepts the reminder of the complainants’ comments not addressed hereafter. 6.2 With regard to the second complainant’s allegation that she is under investigation for a serious weapon offence in Belarus and that the accusations against her are politically motivated, on 17 May 2013, the complainants made a submission to the Migration Board, alleging that there were impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order and providing two documents in Belarusian. Following the translation of these documents, on 26 September 2013, the Migration Board decided not to grant the complainants residence permits under section 18 of chapter 12 of the Aliens Act, or to re-examine their case under section 19 of chapter 12 of the Aliens Act. 6.3 The decision was appealed before the Migration Court as concerns section 19 of chapter 12 of the Aliens Act. On 5 November 2013, the Migration Court decided to remand the case to the Migration Board for assessment of the authenticity of the submitted documents. After having examined the two documents, the Migration Board found that it could not be assessed whether they had been issued in an appropriate manner. The question of whether the documents were authentic was therefore left open. Nevertheless, the Migration Board found that the content in the submitted documents did not plausibly demonstrate that the complainants would risk torture upon return to Belarus. 6.4 The decision was appealed before the Migration Court, which on 7 January 2014 rejected the appeal. On 3 February 2014, the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The State party, as its migration authorities, maintains that the complainants have failed to plausibly demonstrate that they are of any interest to the Belarusian authorities on the grounds of political activity. Furthermore, the State party contends that the 12