CAT/C/54/D/539/2013 4.18 The State party submits that the complainant’s account of what happened to his family is vague and partially contradictory. The complainant first told the Migration Board that his father had told him that his wife and children had been sent to his wife’s parents when he was hiding from the Chechen authorities in Nadterechnoe. However, during the oral hearing before the Migration Court, the complainant claimed that the information regarding his family had come from his cousin, after he had arrived in Sweden. The State party notes that the complainant has not given a credible explanation for that discrepancy in his account. 4.19 In the light of the foregoing, the State party notes that, in accordance with the principle of the burden of proof in asylum cases, it is appropriate to require that an applicant provides all relevant information, tells the truth and helps the asylum officer to clarify all the facts in the case. The applicant should also make an effort to support his statements by providing any available evidence and giving a satisfactory explanation for any lack of evidence.11 Only when that has been done can the asylum-seeking applicant be granted the benefit of the doubt. 4.20 In sum and with reference to the foregoing, the State party submits that the circumstances invoked by the complainant are not sufficient to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Accordingly, the enforcement of the expulsion order would, under the present circumstances, not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Since the complainant’s claim under article 3 fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. 4.21 Finally, the State party notes that the complainant was born and raised in the Dubovsky District of Rostov Oblast, where he lived until 2007, that is, when he was 20 years old. It is clear from his domestic passport, which he submitted to the Swedish authorities, that he was registered in Chechnya in January 2007. Hence, the complainant has lived most of his life outside Chechnya. Furthermore, according to his domestic passport, his marriage was registered in Rostov on 19 November 2009. During the oral hearing before the Migration Court, he stated that his wife lived with her family in Rostov and that her family, like his own, commuted between Rostov and Chechnya. The complainant finished upper secondary school and stated that he is in good physical and mental health. In the State party’s view, no information has emerged about his personal situation to indicate that he would be unable to provide for himself in Rostov or anywhere else in the Russian Federation, even in the absence of an established social network. Against that background, the State party asserts that it is possible and reasonable for the complainant and his family to consider resettling in Rostov or in another part of the Russian Federation if they, for reasons other than those alleged in the present case, feel threatened, for example, by the unstable situation in the Chechen Republic. 4.22 In that regard, the State party notes that, based on relevant Russian legislation, it seems that citizens are not obliged to return to their hometown to cancel their registration before changing their place of residence. Therefore the complainant could immediately take up residence and register in a different place upon return to the Russian Federation.12 11 12 See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, articles 195 and 205 (a). See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, A.M. and Others v. Sweden, application No. 38813/08, decision adopted on 16 June 2009. 9