CAT/C/62/D/685/2015 documents did not substantiate the claim that D.M. had the power to influence the outcome of a potential trial against the male complainant or that he was connected to the local clan. The complainants appealed the decision to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State on 28 June 2014. In the appeal, they claimed that D.M. was now in charge of the police station in Yerevan. The appeal was rejected as manifestly unfounded on 5 September 2014. The complaint 3.1 The complainants claim that there is a real risk that they would be subjected to torture or that their security would be endangered if they were to be returned to Armenia. They claim that they are at risk of being killed or ill-treated by D.M. or a locally influential clan, as the male complainant has previously been threatened and physically assaulted in Armenia, and as his brother has also been assaulted. They claim that the domestic authorities in Armenia will not be able to protect them upon return. 3.2 The complainants also claim that the male complainant will be prosecuted on drug trafficking charges in Armenia and that he will not be afforded a fair trial due to corruption in the judiciary.2 They claim that if returned to Armenia, the male complainant is at risk of being beaten and tortured by the police.3 They argue that there is a consistent pattern of gross and massive violations of human rights in Armenia. They submit that on this basis alone, the State party should refrain from deporting them to Armenia. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 7 December 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint. The State party submits that the male complainant’s claim that he will not be afforded a fair trial in Armenia falls outside the scope of the Convention in the circumstances of the case and that this part of the communication should be found inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. 4.2 The State party notes the complainants’ claim that substantial grounds exist for believing that the male complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Armenia. The State party also notes that the male complainant’s account of the reasons why he left Armenia was deemed to be credible. However, it submits that the complainants did not satisfactorily establish that they would face a risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon return to Armenia. The State party argues that due care was exercised in the domestic asylum procedures and that article 3 of the Convention was taken into account during the process. It notes that the complainants were interviewed several times and questioned on the facts and circumstances of their departure from Armenia. They were given the opportunity to submit corrections and additions to the reports of these interviews, and to respond to the notifications of intent to deny their asylum applications. The State party argues that the complainants’ accounts were carefully assessed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and reviewed by the district court and the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. 4.3 The State party refers to country reports on Armenia issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. It notes that, as per these reports, as well as other country reports on Armenia, the human rights situation in the country gives cause for concern. However, it argues that there is no reason to conclude that expulsion to Armenia would in itself involve a risk of a contravention of article 3 of the Convention, as the threshold for accepting such a general state of violence is high. The State party submits that it is therefore for the complainants to make a persuasive case for their fear of a breach of article 3 of the Convention, on the basis of personal facts and circumstances. 2 3 4 The complainants refer to a United States Department of State country report on Armenia dated 27 February 2014, according to which courts remain subject to political pressure from the executive branch. The complainants refer to the same United States Department of State country report, according to which police regularly beat suspects upon arresting and interrogating them, mainly to extort confessions.