CAT/C/55/D/566/2013 The complaint 3.1 The complainants submit that, if they are to be expelled to the Russian Federation, the State party would violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention, since there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a danger of them being subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 3 3.2 The complainants also contend that they have clearly demonstrated that they were victims of a pattern of harassment and persecution that has already led to the murder of several family members at the hands of Russian law enforcement officers. Since there still are warrants out for their arrest, they believe that there exists a clear and present danger to their lives and well-being. Their fear of persecution and ill-treatment, if returned to the Russian Federation, is well-founded. The contradicting statements made during the interviews with the Swedish authorities can be explained partly by the fact that they have been severely traumatized4 by their experience, which makes it difficult to remember in detail certain events, and by the fact that they were denied an interpreter in their mother tongue and were obliged to conduct the interviews in Russian. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 By note verbale of 13 May 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits. It recalls the facts of the case and also provides excerpts from relevant domestic legislation. The State party submits that the complainants’ case was assessed under the 2005 Aliens Act, which entered into force on 31 March 2006. The State party’s authorities, upon examination of the facts of the case, concluded that the complainants have not shown that they are in need of protection. 4.2 The State party submits that, on 21 November 2009, the Migration Board rejected the complainants’ asylum applications and decided to expel them to the Russian Federation. That decision was appealed before the Migration Court, which, on 11 March 2011, rejected the appeal. On 30 May 2011, the Migration Court of Appeal refused to grant a leave to appeal and the decision to expel the complainants became final.5 On 14 February 2012, the complainants claimed before the Migration Board that there were impediments to the enforcement of the decision to expel them, and requested the re-examination of their case. That request was rejected on 22 February 2012. The decision to reject the request was then appealed before the Migration Court, which rejected the appeal on 23 March 2012. On 8 May 2012, the Migration Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal. 3 4 5 4 The complainants provide the interim guidance for assessing the international protection needs of asylum seekers from the Chechnya, Russian Federation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, dated 4 February 2011. This document recalls that, in February 2003, the Office gave its assessment that all Chechen asylum seekers from the Chechnya were in need of international protection. Since then, this situation has evolved positively, after the decrease in the level and scope of military activity, an overall improvement in the security situation, and a gradual withdrawal of federal troops from Chechnya. Nevertheless, there are still continuing reports of human rights concerns which may place personal safety or rights at risk, in particular, for members of illegal armed formations and their relatives, political opponents of the federal or Chechen authorities, human rights activists and persons that have held official positions in the previous administration of the former President of the self-declared Chechen Republic of Ichkeria Aslan Maskhadov. Mr. M.A. provides a written statement claiming that Russian forces tortured him and burned his back and arms. However, it is unclear whether the information contained therein or the written statement itself were brought to the attention of the Swedish authorities. This decision is related only to Mr. M.A., Ms. M.Z. and two of their four children. The decision regarding the third child became final on 29 March 2012, and regarding the fourth child on 8 July 2013.