CAT/C/60/D/653/2015 was even alive. They referred to information dated 4 October 2016 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway indicating that it was primarily the families of active rebels who were exposed to reprisals by the authorities and that the risk of such reprisals may last even after the rebel has been killed by the authorities. The complainants reiterated that their home was intentionally burned. 7.2 The complainants referred to the State party’s submission that the results of an examination for signs of torture merely reflected the fact that the asylum seeker suffered from physical or mental injury, which may have been inflicted in the way described by the asylum seeker but could also have been inflicted in numerous other ways. They maintained that the State party’s position made it impossible to use the results of a medical examination as evidence because only the one who was present when the damage occurred could give a “100 per cent sure testimony”. They noted that, despite the analysis of the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group and without providing specific reasons, the Refugee Appeals Board had concluded that the complainant lacked credibility and that the medical examination conducted by the Group could not lead to a different assessment of the credibility of the complainants’ statements. 7.3 The complainants also submitted that the Refugee Appeals Board very rarely granted witnesses permission to provide oral testimony. They emphasized that although the Board’s decision was a majority decision and although it was not known how many of the Board members disagreed with the decision, at least one Board member believed that the complainants were trustworthy and that the family should not be returned to Chechnya. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8.3 The Committee recalls that, for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. 15 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly ill-founded owing to a lack of substantiation. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention and that those arguments should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainants to Chechnya would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 15 10 See, inter alia, communication No. 308/2006, K.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 16 November 2007, para. 7.2.