CAT/C/71/D/913/2019 authorities. Even though she received several questions from both the Agency and her public counsel, she was unable to develop her answers with regard to the cited events. 4.22 In its decision of 29 May 2018, the Swedish Migration Agency noted that L.H. had applied for, and was granted, a Russian passport in January 2018, at the same time that she had claimed that a warrant for her arrest had been issued. The Agency considered it unlikely that the Russian authorities would issue a passport to someone for whom an arrest warrant had been issued. In addition, the Agency noted that L.H. had claimed that information about her situation was available on the Internet. However, even though L.H. was given the opportunity to submit documentation of that, she did not do so. In an overall assessment of the complainants’ cited evidence and their oral accounts, the Agency found that they had not plausibly demonstrated that they would risk treatment warranting international protection upon their return to the Russian Federation. 4.23 In its judgment of 19 December 2011, the Migration Court noted a number of inconsistencies in L.H.’s account. For example, she had never been politically active or had any problems with the authorities before the alleged attack at her family’s home. She stated different information regarding her whereabouts when the attack happened at the latter hearing. She also provided three different accounts regarding when and why she supposedly travelled to Moscow with her husband. She furthermore provided completely different information regarding her alleged reporting to the police of her husband’s disappearance. During her asylum investigations in January and February 2010, she stated that she had reported his disappearance to the police, the prosecutor’s office, the president of Ingushetia and various human rights organizations. However, during the Court’s oral hearing, she claimed that it would have meant a death sentence for her to have reported him missing. The Court held that she could not have felt very threatened by the Russian authorities, given that she stayed at her uncle’s farm after the security service had supposedly been there to ask questions about her husband. In that regard, the Court also noted that it was strange that the uncle had not experienced any problems with the authorities, even though he had been in frequent contact with them. In an overall assessment, the Court did not deem L.H.’s account to be credible and found her cited grounds for asylum to be insufficient to grant the complainants international protection. 4.24 In its judgment of 21 September 2018, the Migration Court noted that L.H. had mainly cited the same circumstances as she had in her previous application for asylum. However, she claimed that the security situation in Ingushetia was poor and that the federal police had visited her relatives, conducted house searches and enquired about her. She also claimed that her brother was an active opponent of the regime before he was murdered and that her brother’s opposition activities were the reason that she was being persecuted and the reason for her husband’s disappearance. 4.25 Regarding L.H.’s oral account, the Migration Court noted several inconsistencies. During the oral hearing, L.H. claimed that her brother’s opposition activities were the reason that he and her mother were murdered, and that those activities were the reasons for her husband’s disappearance. However, during the two asylum investigations carried out in 2010, she had stated that she was unable to see any reason as to why her brother or mother were murdered. Furthermore, she denied that her brother had any connection to the rebels in Ingushetia or any other similar group. In 2010, she also claimed that she was persecuted because of her husband. However, she was unable to explain why her husband had disappeared and stated that it might be due to the fact that he had worked within the police and had links to a prosecutor who was murdered in 2007. The Court considered that the account regarding the alleged threat had changed substantially compared with the first time that the complainants applied for asylum. 4.26 The State party shares the assessment made by the domestic migration authorities that L.H. lacked credibility to such an extent that there was reason to question the veracity of her claims regarding the alleged threat from the Russian authorities. The State party holds that it is not a matter of minor inconsistencies; rather, L.H. has provided different accounts regarding events of crucial importance. Moreover, the complainants have submitted entirely new information before the Committee that has not been cited before the domestic authorities. The claim that L.H.’s alleged cousin was kidnapped and killed in 2009 was not cited before the domestic authorities and, as far as the Government is aware, neither was the claim that 6