CAT/C/63/D/717/2015 concerned to investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based.40 The Committee further recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned, however it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 41 9.6 In assessing the risk of torture for the purposes of the present complaint, the Committee notes A.Sh.’s claim that in August 2010 he was detained in Chechnya, interrogated about his collaboration with Chechen insurgents, tortured in detention, and forced to sign a declaration stating that he would collaborate with the authorities. The Committee also notes the complainants’ claim that after A.Sh.’s release from detention and subsequent departure from the Russian Federation, he continued to be of interest to the authorities, since his shop was closed down, the car was confiscated, and apartments of his own family and of his parents and parents-in-law were searched. In November 2012, a criminal case against A.Sh. was opened 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. The Committee further notes the complainants’ claim that Z.H. was raped by a police officer in her apartment in Grozny during an unauthorized search operation aimed at establishing the whereabouts of her husband. The Committee notes that the complainants provided a medical certificate issued by the outpatient clinic in Grozny attesting to A.Sh.’s injuries received in August 2010, as well as the medical reports from the psychiatrist and psychologists in Switzerland confirming that A.Sh. and Z.H. suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, and that their son, Ash.Sh., has also been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. 9.7 The Committee also notes the complainants’ claim that the personal, present and real risk of torture upon their return to the Russian Federation results from the individual and cumulative effect of the following factors: (a) their family connections with members of Chechen insurgents; (b) provision of support to the insurgents by A.Sh.; and (c) the fact that A.Sh. and Z.H. have already come to the attention of the authorities and have been subjected to torture in the past. The State party did not dispute that they have been tortured in the past but, nevertheless, it has dispensed with the evaluation of the complainants’ credibility and the establishment of a well-founded fear of persecution in case of their return to the Russian Federation on the basis of the national authorities’ assumption that an internal flight alternative existed for them in their country of origin, an argument that the complainants have disputed. The complainants allege, inter alia, that ethnic Chechens returning from overseas are called to meetings with the State entities operating on the entire territory of the Russian Federation, such as the Federal Security Service and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where they are questioned, often with threats, ill-treatment and demands for payment, and are often made to collaborate with the security services (see para. 3.5 above). The Committee also notes that the national authorities have expressed some doubts about the credibility of A.Sh.’s allegations and also questioned why Z.H. did not mention rape during the first asylum procedure. The Committee notes in this respect that, according to the medical reports issued by the Swiss psychiatrist and psychologists, A.Sh. and Z.H. suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of treatment to which they were subjected prior to their departure from the Russian Federation, and considers, therefore, that since complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture, 42 the delay in reporting sexual abuse does not undermine the victim’s credibility.43 The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence, establishing that rape constitutes “infliction of severe pain and suffering perpetrated for a number of impermissible purposes, including interrogation, intimidation, punishment, retaliation, humiliation and discrimination based on gender”, and that in other cases it has found that “sexual abuse by the police … constitutes torture” even when it is perpetrated outside of formal detention facilities. 44 40 41 42 43 44 Ibid., para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. Ibid., para. 42; and Ke Chun Rong v. Australia (CAT/C/49/D/416/2010), para. 7.5. See Alan v. Switzerland, para. 11.3. See V.L. v. Switzerland, para. 8.10. 13