CAT/C/71/D/913/2019 5.10 The complainants submit that, apart from the fact the Swedish Migration Agency has a requirement that asylum applicants must be able to prove their identity and therefore visit the relevant embassy, there are many reasons why a person may be able to visit their home country’s embassy and apply for a passport, while still being wanted in their home country and therefore being in need of protection. The embassy is located in another part of the world. The Swedish authorities must also be aware that it is highly unlikely that the Russian authorities would openly take action against L.H. when she is in Sweden, even though she is inside the embassy’s premises. That L.H. is wanted in the Russian Federation does not automatically mean that the authorities abroad can or want to stop the issuance of passports or that she would be arrested inside the embassy’s premises. That is especially the case, given that the threat against L.H. is based on circumstances that the Russian authorities want to keep discreet. Notwithstanding that fact, L.H. has never applied for a passport at the embassy, nor has she been given a passport by the embassy of the Russian Federation in Stockholm. 5.11 To summarize, the complainants’ oral accounts, together with the evidence presented and the relevant country information, clearly demonstrate that the complainants are facing a foreseeable, present, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention upon their return to the Russian Federation. Additional information from the State party 6.1 On 17 February 2020, the State party submitted that the complainants’ further observations of 22 November and 20 December 2019 did not include any new submissions in substance which had not already essentially been covered by the State party’s initial observations of 24 September 2019. However, the State party wishes to emphasize that it fully maintains its position regarding the admissibility and merits as outlined in its previous observations. 6.2 The State party also informs the Committee that the Swedish Migration Agency decided, on 20 January 2020, to repeal its decisions of 13 February 2019 to stay the enforcement of the complainants’ expulsion orders. Additional information from the complainants4 7.1 The complainants submit that they received more information from the Swedish Migration Agency and the court regarding L.H.’s case and more specifically her identity documents. Based on the information received, it is clear that the State party has falsely stated that L.H. applied for and was granted a Russian passport in 2018. The record sheet that L.H. received from the Swedish Migration Agency shows that L.H. did not submit an application for a new passport in 2018. The only identity document that L.H. has submitted to the Swedish authorities is her passport that she had with her when she first arrived in Sweden. It is therefore clear that she has never visited the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Stockholm and applied for a new passport. In addition, it is not clear where the State party or the Swedish migration authorities received such information, given that she had submitted no new passport application. 7.2 The fact that L.H. did not apply for or receive a new passport during her stay in Sweden is of great significance, because that appears to be one of the main reasons for which 4 On 11 November 2020, the complainant’s counsel informed the Committee that the complainants had submitted new evidence to the Swedish Migration Agency. On 9 October 2020, however, the Swedish Migration Board had decided not to take it into consideration, given that the evidence in question had already been assessed by the migration agencies. The Agency also stated that much of the written evidence had been taken into account during the previous processes, such as the document regarding the disappearance of L.H.’s husband, the letter from the human rights organization, the photographs, the summons for questioning, the arrest warrant and the letter from Mr. Taipov. On 15 April 2021, the Swedish Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal. On 11 May 2021, the Migration Court of Appeal denied the complainant’s leave to appeal. In the light of the above and given that the evidence has been submitted to the Swedish migration agencies, from the first instance to the last, the complainants consider that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in relation to the “new” evidence submitted and in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 9