CAT/C/55/D/566/2013 8.4 The Committee takes note of the claim that the complainants were arrested and tortured on number of occasions, from 1999 to 2008. The Committee also notes that, according to the complainants, the Migration Board and subsequently the Migration Court, both failed to take into consideration this information. 8.5 The Committee further notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainants were subjected to torture and/or ill-treatment in the past, the question is whether they remain, at present, at risk of torture in the Russian Federation. The Committee notes that the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation remains a matter of concern in several aspects, in particular in the northern Caucasus. The Committee recalls that it expressed its concerns in its concluding observations concerning the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation in 2012, quoting “numerous, ongoing and consistent reports of serious human rights abuses inflicted by or at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials or other persons acting in official capacities in the northern Caucasus, including the Chechen Republic, including torture and ill-treatment, abductions, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings”.13 8.6 The Committee notes that the State party has drawn attention to inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainants’ accounts and submissions that cast doubts regarding their general credibility and the veracity of their claims. In particular, the complainants claimed that their relatives have been arrested and murdered at the hands of the authorities, but failed to provide any names or other evidence or details pertaining to these allegations. The Committee further notes that the complainants claim to have been arrested and assaulted on several occasions. Despite that, they provide little to no description of the alleged torture they suffered at the hands of the law enforcement officers. In general, the complainants have not provided exact dates of these events, nor referred to exact locations. 8.7 The Committee further observes that the complainants merely stated before the Migration Board and the Migration Court that they feared being subjected to torture if returned to the Russian Federation, claiming that they have been tortured in the past and that that they would be targeted again. The Committee, however, notes that the complainants do not put forward any evidence that the Russian authorities would target them if they were returned. The Committee recalls that, in its general comment No. 1, it stated that it should give considerable weight to findings of fact made by the State party concerned. The Committee considers that, in the specific circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to challenge the State party’s evaluation of all the evidence presented by the complainants. 8.8 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence whereby the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory, and indicates that it is generally for the complainant to present an arguable case. 14 In that regard, the Committee, in addition to the lack of information about the alleged instances of torture, also notes the discrepancies as described in paragraphs 4.10 and 4.11 above. In the light of the considerations above, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainants, including on the general situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, the Committee considers that the 13 14 2003, and No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005. See concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation, adopted by the Committee at its forty-ninth session (CAT/C/RUS/CO/5), para. 13. See communications No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. and others v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2007, para. 8.10; No. 256/2004, M.Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 12 May 2006, para. 9.3; No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, para. 6.3; and No. 347/2008, N.B.-M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2011, para. 9.9. 9