CAT/C/63/D/732/2016 4.7 Regarding the alleged threat relating to the blood feud, the State party notes that this threat emanates from non-State actors. It refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in G.R.B. v. Sweden, in which the Committee has held that the obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by non-governmental actors, without the acquiescence of a public official or a person acting in an official capacity, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 3 It submits that in the present case it has not been substantiated that the perceived threat from non-State actors is inflicted by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or another person acting in official capacity. 4.8 The State party submits that there are significant doubts regarding the general credibility and veracity of the complainants’ claims. It refers to the decision of the Migration Court and notes that there are inconsistencies in the complainants’ account of events pertaining to the description of the influence and status of the chief of the complainants’ home village and to what occurred at the alleged shooting in August 2013. The State party notes that the male complainant has also claimed that he would be at risk of ill-treatment by the Chechen authorities as he has been accused of collaborating with the rebel movement in Chechnya. It notes that the Migration Court found this claim to be vague and lacking in detail, as the complainant stated that the accusations were linked to a childhood friend that he had not seen for several years. The State refers to the decision of the Migration Court and it argues that since the complainant was working as a police officer until he left Chechnya, it would appear to be unlikely that the authorities would suspect him of sympathizing with rebels on such vague grounds. 4.9 The State party submits that the complainants have failed to provide substantial grounds for believing that they would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the Russian Federation. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 13 March 2017, the complainants submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. They make reference to a country report on the Russian Federation by the Swedish Foreign Office’s Department for International Law, Human Rights and Treaty Law, according to which serious violations against human rights still occur in the North Caucasus, with unconfirmed reports of political murders and disappearances sanctioned by the authorities. They argue that contrary to the opinion of the Migration Agency, the Russian authorities would be unwilling to provide them with protection. They submit that there are therefore substantial grounds for believing that they would face a personal, real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture if returned to the Russian Federation. State party’s further observations 6.1 On 22 January 2018, the State party submitted further observations on the complaint. The State party refers to the 2017 Human Rights Watch country report on the Russian Federation, according to which armed confrontation between Islamist insurgents and law enforcement agencies have continued in the North Caucasus. According to the report, local authorities have been accused of abductions and enforced disappearances, ill-treatment and threats of violence against journalists, critics and others deemed disloyal to the authorities. The State party argues that, while the human rights situation in the Russian Federation and the North Caucasus remains troublesome, it is not such that there exists a general need for protection for all asylum seekers from the region. The State party maintains that a removal of the complainants to the Russian Federation would not amount to a violation of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 3 4 G.R.B v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/83/1997), para. 6.5.