CAT/C/63/D/717/2015 in reporting sexual abuse did not undermine the complainant’s credibility. 11 The Federal Office for Migration based its decision only on the fact that Z.H. did not mention the rape during the first asylum procedure, even though it was explained in the submitted medical reports that avoidance of traumatic memories was one of the main symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Furthermore, the Federal Administrative Court did not examine the credibility of Z.H.’s rape allegations. 3.3 As a result of the traumatizing events that happened to them and their family members in Chechnya, the complainants suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, which includes suicidal thoughts, and they are receiving psychiatric and psychological therapy in Switzerland. Their son Ash.Sh. has also been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and with enuresis unrelated to any substance or known physiological condition and receives psychological treatment. 3.4 With regard to the internal flight alternative, the complainants argue that it is not available to them, as they were ill-treated and persecuted by “public officials or other persons acting in official capacities in the North Caucasus”. Therefore, they fear State-run persecution. They refer to the 2003 paper by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees according to which internal relocation to other parts of the Russian Federation cannot be a relevant consideration where the feared agent of persecution is a State agent. 12 The guidelines on the treatment of Chechen internally displaced persons, asylum seekers and refugees in Europe, of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, revised in 2007, stated that for Chechens in need of international protection, a viable internal protection alternative is not available. 13 With reference to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in I v. Sweden14 and to the European Council on Refugees and Exiles guidelines updated in March 2011,15 the complainants submit that ethnic Chechens returning from overseas are called to meetings with the Federal Security Service and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where they are questioned, often with threats and ill-treatment and demands for payment. Young men, especially, are made to collaborate with the security services. These entities operate in the entire territory of the Russian Federation. Therefore, there is no internal flight alternative for refugees from the North Caucasus, since they can be questioned and forced to collaborate with the regime throughout the Russian Federation. Even if the Chechen authorities cannot directly exercise power outside Chechnya, they collaborate with the Russian Federation authorities, and the latter obtain information from the Chechen authorities about persons suspected of being insurgents. Therefore, it is obvious to the complainants that the Russian Federation authorities will not protect them — persons of Chechen ethnicity accused by the Chechen authorities of collaboration with the insurgents — as they act against the interests of the Government of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the complainants run a real risk of being interrogated, tortured and then transferred to Chechnya by the Russian Federation authorities. 3.5 The complainants also submit that the North Caucasus region has been a centre of political and civil conflict for quite some time, and that the Russian Federation security forces respond to the instability with harsh actions, including extralegal sanctions and increased monitoring that can lead to house searches, arrests, torture and killings. In that context, the complainants quote the Committee’s concluding observations of 2012 on the Russian Federation,16 according to which there is a widespread practice of torture and illtreatment as a means to extract confessions, and the authorities fail to carry out prompt, effective and independent investigations into allegations of torture and ill-treatment by officials. They also refer to the Committee’s recent decision in a complaint involving an 11 12 13 14 15 16 6 Reference is made to V.L. v. Switzerland, para. 8.8; Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.3; and I.A.O. v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/65/1997), para. 14.3. “UNHCR paper on asylum seekers from the Russian Federation in the context of the situation in Chechnya”, para. 76, available at www.refworld.org/docid/3ea7bbd34.html. Available at www.refworld.org/docid/4603bb602.html. Application No. 61204/09, judgment of 5 September 2013, para. 39. Available at www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ECRE-Revised-Guidelines-on-the-treatmentof-Chechen-IDPs-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-in-Europe_March-2011.pdf, pp. 52–53. CAT/C/RUS/CO/5.