CAT/C/58/D/616/2014 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By a note verbale dated 12 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations on 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 complainant’s case was assessed under the 2005 Aliens Act. The State party’s authorities, upon examination of the facts of the case, concluded that the complainant “has not shown that he is in need of protection”. 4.2 The State party further submits unofficial translations of the proceedings of the Swedish migration authorities to show the reasoning behind the State party’s decision to expel the complainant. The findings confirm that the complainant is not in need of protection and can be expelled to the Russian Federation. 4.3 The complainant arrived in Sweden on 25 October 2012 and applied for asylum the following day. The State party’s migration authorities rejected the application and decided, on 1 July 2013, to expel the complainant. The decision was appealed, but on 5 November 2013 the Migration Court rejected the appeal. On 14 January 2014, the Migration Court of Appeals refused the complainant’s request for leave to appeal and the decision to expel him became final. 4.4 On 4 February 2014, the complainant claimed before the Migration Board that there “were impediments to enforcement of the decision to expel him” and requested a reexamination of his case. That request was rejected on 18 February 2014 and no appeal against that decision was filed. 4.5 The State party does not contest that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case. It submits, however, that the claims presented by the complainant are “manifestly unfounded” and, therefore, that they should be considered inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.6 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party explains that, in considering the present case, it examined the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation and, in particular, the personal risk to the complainant of being subjected to torture if returned there. The State party notes that it is incumbent on the complainants, who must present an arguable case, to establish that they run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture.6 In addition, while the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory, it does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. 4.7 Regarding the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation, specifically in the northern Caucasus, the State party notes that recent reports7 show that the general levels of violence have decreased during 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, such as arbitrary detentions, abductions, torture and extrajudicial killings, against the civilian population. The current situation in Chechnya in itself does not, however, establish a risk of torture for the complainant should he be expelled to his home country. 6 7 The State party refers, inter alia, to communication No. 178/2001, H.O. v. Sweden. Reference is made to the following, among others: United States of America, Department of State, “Russia 2013 human rights report”; Amnesty International, “Annual report: Russian Federation 2013”; Human Rights Watch, “World report 2014: Russia”; and a 2011 country profile on the Russian Federation of the Swedish Migration Board. 3