CAT/C/55/D/566/2013 occasion, the Migration Board was able to re-examine the “new circumstances” invoked by one of the complainants (see para. 4.2). 4.9 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, as well as its jurisprudence, stating that considerable weight will be given to findings of facts made by organs of the State party concerned.9 The Migration Board and the Migration Court are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice. There is no reason therefore to conclude that the examination by the national authorities was inadequate or that the outcome was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 4.10 The State party submits that it was able to identify several inconsistencies in the facts presented by the complainants. During the interview with the Migration Board, Mr. M.A. stated that he and Ms. M.N. stayed with his aunt until December 2005 or January 2006. However, Ms. M.N. stated that they stayed only until October 2005. The complainants claimed that this inconsistency was the result of misinterpretation. Furthermore, Mr. M.A. stated that, during their visit on one occasion, the military officers never entered the house, while Ms. M.N. stated that they entered the house and searched it. 4.11 Mr. M.A. also claimed that he was arrested on two occasions, in 1999 and 2003. In 1999, an armoured vehicle exploded in the vicinity of his village and the residents of the village were blamed for this incident. In 2003, Mr. M.A. was arrested and asked to sign a statement accepting responsibility for the 1999 attack. The State party finds this explanation implausible. Mr. M.A. submitted to the Migration Board that he had escaped from detention in 2003, whereas in his present complaint to the Committee, he reported that he had been released. 4.12 Regarding the summonses from the Chechen authorities, the State party submits that Mr. M.A. was called to serve as a witness. The Migration Board considered the document to be very simple and therefore of low probative value. In addition, Mr. M.A. claimed that he had no contact with the Chechen authorities from 2005 to 2009. According to the State party, it is implausible that the authorities would have had no interest in Mr. M.A. for four years if he had been suspected of being a member of a rebel movement. 4.13 The State party further finds Ms. M.N.’s allegations regarding her alleged assaults by the Russian military on two occasions, in 2007 and in 2008, implausible. Ms. M.N. was accused of having a “secret archive” of documents related to her former husband, who served as a bodyguard to Mr. Maskhadov. The Russian military raided her home searching for these documents in 1997, and the State party contends that it is unlikely that the Russian authorities would still be interested in the documents in 2008. Ms. M.N. also reported having sold medicine to rebels in 2004 and 2005. The State party submits that it is strange that she was only confronted with this fact in 2008. 4.14 After the decision to expel the complainants became final, the complainants claimed before the Migration Board that they had new evidence relevant to their asylum case. They submitted a certificate issued by Memorial, a human rights non-governmental organization, allegedly sent by Ms. M.N.’s brother in Chechnya. Ms. M.N. further alleged that, after her brother had contacted Memorial to obtain the certificate, he was arrested and murdered by the police. Shortly after that, Ms. M.N.’s cousin, whom she had also contacted, was also murdered. The State party submits that the complainants have not provided the identities of these relatives and no evidence has been submitted to prove these claims. 9 6 The State party refers to communication No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 22 November 2006, para. 8.6.