CAT/C/55/D/566/2013 4.15 The State party therefore contends that the complainants have failed to satisfy the requirements that the risk of torture in this case is foreseeable, real and personal. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 In reply to the State party’s observations, on 18 August 2014, the complainants submit that the situation of human rights in Chechnya is very different from the State party’s description. They refer to the same report published by the Swedish Foreign Office, available only in Swedish, that the State party had cited. According to that report, the Russian administration is characterized by widespread corruption and human rights activists, journalists and whistle-blowers are harassed and subjected at times to fatal violence. According to the report, the most serious violations still occur in the northern Caucasus, where, in the name of fighting terrorism, the civilian population is subjected to torture, arbitrary arrests and kidnappings. 5.2 The complainants also refers to “unconfirmed reports about political murders and disappearances” sanctioned by the authorities. This clearly demonstrates a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Various organizations have described the situation in Chechnya as “an atmosphere of terror” and a “climate of pervading fear”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has called for accountability for murders, intimidation and harassment. 5.3 The complainants submit that, while the Migration Board and the Migration Court are in good position to the information submitted by asylum applicants, they do not have first-hand knowledge of the situation in the country of origin, which is especially evident in the present case. While Mr. M.A. was interviewed in the Chechen language via an interpreter, Ms. M.N. was interviewed in Russian, which in and of itself could be considered a denial of justice. 5.4 Regarding the inconsistencies, the complainants submit that these are not signs of “diminished credibility”. On the contrary, a flawless story would be a sign that it was memorized. Furthermore, the inconsistencies can be explained by post-traumatic stress disorder, which can result in memory dysfunction. The complainants further submit that the State party should have referred him to an expert in forensic medicine to verify the injuries that were inflicted when the complainants were tortured. It is the State party’s obligation to follow up on testimonies where claims of torture are made. 10 State party’s further submission 6.1 On 18 June 2015, the State party, responding to counsel’s comments of 18 August 2014, reiterates its position that, while it does not wish to underestimate the concerns regarding the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation and especially in the region of the northern Caucasus, the situation in and of itself does not establish a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The complainants’ return to the Russian Federation would entail a breach if they could show that they are personally at risk of being subjected to the treatment contrary to article 3. 6.2 The State party further submits that, throughout the domestic proceedings, the complainants were represented by counsel. The Migration Court has taken all relevant circumstances into account during the asylum proceedings. Although the initial burden rests 10 The complainants refer to European Court of Human Rights judgement, R.C. v. Sweden, application No. 41827/07. 7