CAT/C/54/D/539/2013 proceedings, the complainant stated that there were no visible scars or other injuries on his body from the torture that he allegedly suffered. In that regard, the State party, like the migration authorities, finds it implausible that a person who had allegedly been subjected to severe torture has no scars or signs of such treatment on his body. The State party stresses that it is up to the complainant to establish, prima facie, his asylum case. The State party also maintains that, where there is no evidence of alleged abuse or ill-treatment, there is no obligation on the part of the migration authorities to initiate a medical investigation.9 4.14 The State party shares the conclusions of the migration authorities that several aspects of the complainant’s account of his experiences are questionable as available country information only partially supports the story that he presented to the domestic authorities. Even if his statements concerning the first arrest and the claim that he was forced to sign a confession might be supported by certain publicly available reports, the country information does not support the “practice” alleged by the complainant that he was re-arrested after only one night of being released the first time, then he was sought almost immediately after being released the second time, despite the condition and assignment that he claims was given to him. In relation to the first arrest, the State party notes that it is normal that there is an imminent risk that a person against whom the authorities have levelled serious accusations, who has been deprived of his liberty and who has been subjected to extensive assaults by the authorities would go into hiding upon release in order to avoid the authorities. Therefore, the State party does not find it plausible that the Chechen authorities would have released him without any commitments on his part, as suggested by the complainant. 4.15 Moreover, in relation to the second arrest, the State party submits that the manner in which the complainant was supposed to execute the task assigned to him seems unlikely. It also appears improbable that his father would have been able to visit him regularly despite the authorities’ interest in him. It would have been important to consider the associated risk that the complainant’s hiding place would be revealed and that he and his friend would be exposed to danger. If the authorities had such an interest in the complainant as he alleges, they would have been able to find him either by following his father or by interrogating friends of the family. 4.16 The State party refers to available country information, according to which a substantial proportion of the population in the Chechen Republic has supported the rebels at some point, and highlights the fact that the authorities are currently not interested in people who have done so only sporadically. It is also clear that the Chechen authorities focus on persons suspected of having supported or collaborated with high-profile rebels and who have provided substantial support for a longer period of time.10 The State party also notes that the complainant has not provided any documentation or evidence indicating that he is wanted by the authorities, nor has he submitted any documents showing that there are investigations or proceedings pending against him before the Chechen authorities. 4.17 Moreover, the complainant alleged that the authorities threatened to kill his family when they were searching for the complainant at his house. However, after he left the Russian Federation, his cousin was in touch with his father and was informed that the family is alive. The State party finds that, considering the Chechen authorities’ alleged interest in the complainant, the allegations regarding threats to his family and the fact that to date nothing has happened to his family further undermines the credibility of the complainant’s story. 9 10 8 See, for example, communication No. 464/2011, K. H. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2012, para. 8.8. See Swedish Migration Board, Country Profile – Russia, 25 February 2011, pp. 23–24.