CAT/C/60/D/653/2015 9.7 Concerning the State party’s general argument that A.M.D.’s account was not credible, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture, and that any inconsistencies in the complainant’s presentation of the facts are not material and do not raise doubts about the general veracity of his claims.18 In that context, the Committee finds that, in determining whether there were substantial grounds for believing that A.M.D. would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if deported, the State party has failed to duly verify the complainant’s allegations and evidence, as required by article 3 of the Convention.19 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the deportation of A.M.D. to the Russian Federation would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 11. As the cases of M.M.Y. and the complainants’ three children, who were minors at the time of the family’s asylum application in Denmark, are largely dependent upon A.M.D.’s case, the Committee does not find it necessary to consider those cases individually. 12. The Committee is of the view that the State party has an obligation, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, to refrain from forcibly returning the complainants to the Russian Federation or any other country where they run a real risk of being expelled or returned to the Russian Federation. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations. 18 19 12 See communications No. 21/1995, Alan v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 11.3; No. 43/1996, Tala v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 November 1996, para. 10.3; and No. 41/1996, Kisoki v. Sweden, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 9.3. See communications No. 416/2010, Chun Rong v. Australia, decision adopted on 5 November 2012, para. 7.5; and No. 558/2013, R.D. et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 13 May 2016, para. 9.4.