CAT/C/63/D/717/2015 authorities and not by the Russian Federation authorities. The complainants recall, however, that they submitted evidence proving that a criminal case had been opened against A.Sh. pursuant to articles 314 (evading serving a sentence of deprivation of liberty), 308 (refusal of a witness or a victim to give testimony) and 208 (organization of an illegal armed formation, or participation in it) of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the authorities are still looking for him and there is a real, personal and present risk that he will again be subjected to torture during interrogation or detention. 7.2 The State party’s authorities did not thoroughly evaluate the complainants’ allegations at the domestic level or find that they lacked credibility. Rather, the State party’s authorities dispensed with such an evaluation after having concluded that there was an internal flight alternative available to them. No “safe” area exists for the complainants in Chechnya or the Russian Federation, since the police are looking for A.Sh. and a criminal case has been opened against him. 7.3 The complainants reiterate their arguments with regard to the cooperation between the Chechen authorities and the Russian Federation authorities (see para. 3.4 above). They add that the Russian Federation authorities installed a pro-Russian Chechen regime and that the President of the Russian Federation himself has vowed to take tougher action against Chechen insurgents, who are considered as “domestic terrorists”.36 Therefore, there is no internal flight alternative for refugees from the North Caucasus, such as the complainants, since they can be questioned and arrested throughout the Russian Federation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 The Committee notes that the State party contested the admissibility of the complaint with regard to A.Sh. and his three children on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party argued, in particular, that the competent national authorities did not have the opportunity to evaluate the following new elements that had been presented by the complainants in their complaint to the Committee: (a) the opening of the criminal case against A.Sh. by the authorities of the Russian Federation; (b) the alleged sentencing of the cousin of A.Sh. to three years’ imprisonment by the Supreme Court of Chechnya in January 2013; and (c) the reported dismissal of the brother of A.Sh. from his duty as a police officer in January 2015. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that the complainants in question could have lodged a second asylum application on the basis of the new evidence that became available after the closure of their first asylum procedure. 8.3 In this context, the Committee notes the complainants’ acknowledgment that they did not mention either in the course of their asylum procedure or the review procedure the sentencing and dismissal of A.Sh.’s family members in Chechnya (see para. 5.3 above). The Committee also notes the complainants’ assertion that the new elements constitute further evidence corroborating the complainants’ fear of torture and persecution, which the competent national authorities have already examined the substance of the case, rather than “new asylum grounds”. Therefore, even if they had lodged a second asylum application, the Federal Office for Migration would have dismissed it pursuant to article 111 (c) (2) of the Asylum Act, as a “multiple or repeated application”. Furthermore, the new elements concern events in Chechnya and are, therefore, inappropriate to rebut the assumption of the authorities of the State party about the availability of an internal flight alternative for the complainants in the Russian Federation. The Committee notes in this connection that the 36 Reference is made to Andrew E. Kramer, “Russia shows what happens when terrorists’ families are targeted”, New York Times, 29 March 2016. 11