CAT/C/54/D/539/2013 was not asked to produce any identity document on his way to Sweden. On 19 May 2011, the complainant applied for asylum in Sweden, where he was staying with a cousin, who had limited contact with his family. Through the cousin, he found out that the Chechen authorities had been looking for him again. 2.7 On 3 October 2011, the Swedish Migration Board rejected the complainant’s request for asylum, finding that his story lacked credibility. The complainant notes, in particular, that the Board considered that it was not credible that he was released one day after his initial arrest, then re-arrested and released again after two weeks, although he was accused of having committed a serious crime. The complainant states that the Board claimed that such activity did not correspond to the known practices of the Chechen authorities, as reported by human rights organizations. The complainant also points out that the Board noted that: (i) he could not explain how his father managed to visit him in Nadterechnoe without disclosing his location; (ii) he stated that he did not have any scars or bruises as a result of the alleged torture and severe ill-treatment suffered; (iii) there was no information that his relatives had been persecuted by the authorities; and (iv) he did not submit any documentation in support of his claims. 2.8 On an unspecified date, the complainant appealed the decision of the Swedish Migration Board before the Migration Court in Malmö. He alleged that the course of action that he described was “normal” in Chechnya; that he was released after one day because the Chechen authorities knew that he and his family would be afraid; and that the persecution was a measure of control rather than a preliminary investigation. He pointed out that many people in Chechnya were suspected of collaborating with the resistance, which made it impossible for the authorities to conduct surveillance on all of them and their relatives. He asserted that it was most likely for that reason that his father was not followed by the authorities when he visited him in Nadterechnoe. The complainant also noted that the human rights information referred to by the Board dated from 2009 and that there were new, updated reports, including from the State party, indicating that the human rights situation in Chechnya had worsened in 2010. On 18 September 2012, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal. Although the Court found parts of the complainant’s story to be supported by available country information, it still did not find the complainant’s allegations fully convincing. 2.9 On an unspecified date, the complainant filed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the Migration Court before the Migration Court of Appeal. The application was rejected on 17 October 2012 and the decision to expel the complainant became final on 7 November 2012. 2.10 On 19 November 2012, the complainant met with the Migration Board about his removal to the Russian Federation. The Swedish authorities encouraged him to return and offered him 30,000 Swedish kronor. On 28 November 2012, he informed the authorities that he was not interested in the money. On 8 March 2013, the complainant was informed that he had four weeks to leave the country voluntarily. The complaint 3.1 Given his personal situation and in the light of the previous persecution which he had suffered in Chechnya, the complainant claims that the Swedish authorities did not adequately assess the risk to which he would be subjected if returned to the Russian Federation. Returning him to the Russian Federation would violate article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 He argues that torture is widely used in Chechnya to keep the population under control. In his case, there was no ground for his arrest nor for a criminal investigation. All the charges were fabricated and the officials no doubt knew that. The fact that torture is 4