CAT/C/63/D/717/2015 9.8 The Committee notes that, as the State party’s authorities based their decisions to reject the complainants’ applications on the basis of the assumption that an internal flight alternative was available to them in the Russian Federation, the complainants’ claims regarding risk based on their past experience in their country of origin and on real or perceived family connections and collaboration with the Chechen insurgents were not fully examined. The Committee recalls, in this context, that the internal flight or relocation alternative does not represent a reliable and durable alternative where the lack of protection is generalized and the individual concerned would be exposed to a further risk of persecution or serious harm. 45 In this context, the Committee notes that so-called registration, that is, the system that records the place of residence and internal migration of Russian nationals, still exists in the Russian Federation and is being rigorously enforced. Under article 5 of the Law on the Right of Nationals of the Russian Federation to Freedom of Movement and Choice of Place of Residence within the Russian Federation, Russian nationals must register with the relevant authorities within 90 days of arriving in a new place of residence. Living in a dwelling without having obtained permanent or temporary registration is considered an administrative offence pursuant to article 19.15.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences. The Committee also notes that, according to information in the public domain, the federal-level authorities of the Russian Federation closely cooperate with the Chechen authorities, particularly as far as the exchanging of information on persons suspected of being insurgents is concerned. It further notes that the current leadership of Chechnya enjoys support and protection from the Russian Federation authorities at the highest political level. Therefore, once the complainants are returned to the Russian Federation, they are legally bound to notify the Russian Federation authorities about their place of residence and such information is accessible to the Chechen authorities. The Committee therefore considers that, by rejecting the complainants’ asylum applications on the basis of the assumption of availability of an internal flight alternative and without giving sufficient weight to whether they could be at risk of persecution, the State party failed in its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 10. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainants’ deportation to the Russian Federation would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 11. The Committee is of the view that, pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, the State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning the complainants to the Russian Federation or to any other country where there is a real risk of them being expelled or returned to the Russian Federation. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations. 45 14 See Mondal v. Sweden (CAT/C/46/D/338/2008), para. 7.4; and M.K.M. v. Australia (CAT/C/60/D/681/2015), para. 8.9.