CAT/C/55/D/566/2013 4.3 Regarding admissibility, the State party submits that the claim is based on the alleged arrest and assault in 1999 of Mr. M.A., by the Chechen authorities, and on the allegations of Ms. M.N., who also claimed to have been assaulted, but that these claims are “manifestly unfounded”, and therefore, inadmissible, under article 22 (2) of the Covenant and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.4 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the Committee must decide whether the complainants are personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country of return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to his or her country. The State party, referring to the Committee jurisprudence,6 submits that additional grounds must exist to show personal risk. 4.5 In considering the present case, the State party therefore examined the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation, and, in particular, the personal risk of the complainants of being subjected to torture if returned there. The State party further notes that it falls to the complainants, who must present an arguable case, to establish that they run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture.7 In addition, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory, but do not have to meet the test of being highly probable. 4.6 Regarding the current situation of the human rights in the Russian Federation and, specifically, in the northern Caucasus, the State party notes that recent reports8 show that the general levels of violence have decreased in the past several years. At the same time, the State party does not underestimate the concerns regarding the human rights situation, since recent reports still contain information of human rights violations against the civilian population in the form of arbitrary detentions, abductions, torture and extrajudicial killings. 4.7 The State party submits that several provisions of its Aliens Act reflect the same principle as those indicated in article 3 of the Convention and, therefore, the State party authorities apply the same kind of test when considering asylum applications. According to sections 1-3 of chapter 12 of the Aliens Act, an asylum seeker cannot be returned to a country where there are reasonable grounds to assume that that person would be in danger of being subjected to death penalty, corporal punishment, torture or other degrading treatment or punishment. 4.8 The State party further submits that the national authorities are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to assess the credibility of claims. In the present case, the Migration Board and the Migration Court have made a thorough examination of the material before them. Upon the initial asylum claim, the Migration Board conducted an interview that lasted approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes. This was conducted in the presence of a counsel and an interpreter. On one 6 7 8 The State party refers to communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3, and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. The State party refers to, inter alia, communication No. 178/2001, H.O. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 13 November 2001, para. 13. References are made to the following reports: United States of America, Department of State, Human Rights Report on Russia (2013); Amnesty International, Annual Report: Russian Federation (2013); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014: Russia; Sweden, Swedish Migration Board, “Country Profile: Russia”, 25 February 2011; and reports by Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, 2011, the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, 2013, and the Danish Refugee Council. 5