CAT/C/59/D/634/2014 and whether he was handcuffed. The Board also observed that his statement contained many small inconsistencies, which, however, could not in themselves be accorded crucial importance. In that respect, the Board assessed whether the reason for the inconsistencies as a whole might be that the first complainant had been subjected to abuse, as he had claimed. However, on the basis of an overall assessment, the Board found that that could not be the case. Accordingly, the Board found that the first complainant would not risk persecution as set out in section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act or be in need of protection status as set out in section 7 (2) of the Act should he return to the Russian Federation. For the same reasons, the Board found no basis for adjourning the case pending an examination for signs of torture. 2.8 In a separate decision, also dated 12 September 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board assessed the second complainant’s ground for asylum, i.e., her husband’s fear of being killed by the authorities, including the Federal Security Bureau, if returned to Ingushetia in the Russian Federation. The Board did not accept the statement made by the second complainant in support of the asylum application as fact, because it contained many inconsistencies. Accordingly, and since she had no independent grounds for asylum, the Board found that the second complainant would not risk persecution as set out in section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act or be in need of protection status as set out in section 7 (2) of the Act should she return to the Russian Federation. 2.9 The complainants were informed by the first complainant’s elder sister that the Federal Security Bureau had continued to look for him after he and his family fled the Russian Federation and that Bureau officials had come to the family’s house several times, including in December 2013, February 2014 and March 2014. During one of those visits, the authorities searched the house and seized documents, including the first complainant’s birth certificate, school diploma and business documents. The authorities last went to their house in mid-September 2014. The complaint 3.1 The complainants submit that the first complainant was subjected to torture in the Russian Federation and that the Danish immigration authorities rejected their asylum applications without summoning the first complainant for an examination for signs of torture. With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence,9 the complainants argue that, in its credibility assessment, the Refugee Appeals Board did not take into account that persons who have been subjected to torture have difficulties in giving an account of facts, including dates. 3.2 The complainants claim that the first complainant’s deportation to Ingushetia in the Russian Federation would expose him to the risk of being tortured or killed by the Federal Security Bureau, which believes that he is an insurgent. He also fears being tortured by the insurgents because he signed an agreement to cooperate with the authorities in their search for the insurgents. In addition, the first complainant claims that the authorities in the Russian Federation will not protect him against the insurgents, because of his imputed cooperation with the latter. For these reasons, the first complainant submits that the State party will be in breach of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention if they return him and his family to the Russian Federation. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits on 14 April 2015. As to the facts on which the present communication is based, it refers to the 9 4 Reference is made to communication No. 416/2010, Ke Chun Rong v. Australia, decision adopted on 5 November 2012, para. 7.5.