CAT/C/63/D/717/2015 extradition to the Russian Federation, in which the Committee concluded that the pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights and the significant risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation had been sufficiently established. 17 The complainants also quote reports by several non-governmental organizations, according to which law enforcement and security agencies in the North Caucasus region continue to punish relatives and suspected supporters of alleged insurgents. 18 It is stated in those reports that family members of Chechen resistance activists run the risk of being tortured, kidnapped or even extrajudicially killed by Russian Federation security authorities.19 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 21 January 2016, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint. The State party recalls that the complainants, in their complaint to the Committee, submitted that: (a) the Russian Federation authorities initiated criminal proceedings against the first complainant; (b) on 23 January 2013, the Supreme Court of Chechnya sentenced the cousin of A.Sh. to three years’ imprisonment; and (c) the brother of A.Sh. was dismissed from his duties as a police officer on 10 January 2015. These elements were not raised with the authorities of the State party during the review procedure. 20 The complainants also failed to submit any evidence to the authorities of the State party in support of these elements. The State party should have had an opportunity to evaluate the new evidence before the complaint was submitted to the Committee. In the context of the review procedure, the complainants essentially limited themselves to asserting health problems, the absence of medical facilities in the Russian Federation, and the well-being of their children, who would be uprooted in the event of their return. The State party maintains that A.Sh. and his three children 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. The opening of a new asylum procedure following a second asylum application entails the right to stay in Switzerland until the procedure is complete. As regards extraordinary remedies for the submission of new facts, neither the Federal Office for Migration (in an application for a review) nor the Federal Administrative Court (in a request for a review) can grant measures with suspensive effect. In all cases, a decision to suspend the enforcement of the expulsion order, or a decision to classify an appeal as a new asylum application, is taken after an individual examination of the case, which includes a risk assessment pursuant to article 3 of the Convention. 4.2 The State party concludes, therefore, that A.Sh. and his three children have not exhausted domestic remedies, as they have not availed themselves of effective means to present new claims and evidence to the Federal Office for Migration, whose negative decision could have also been appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In their submission of 18 March 2016, the complainants argue that A.Sh. referred, in his appeal to the Federal Administrative Court of 2 February 2012, to the summonses issued in his name by the Chechen authorities. On 14 February 2012, the complainants’ counsel submitted copies of the summonses, together with a translation of them into German (see para. 2.14 above). However, in its interim decision of 21 February 2012, the Federal Administrative Court stated that A.Sh. had been summoned as a witness and not as a defendant, and that the summonses “would not be appropriate” to rebut the assumption that there existed an internal flight alternative for the complainants in the Russian Federation. The complainants’ counsel requested a new hearing concerning the new facts but the Federal Administrative Court rejected that request on 24 May 2012 and reiterated its 17 18 19 20 See X v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/55/D/554/2013), para. 12.6. Human Rights Watch, World Report 2013: Russia (31 January 2013). Swiss Refugee Council, “Tschetschenien: Verfolgung von Personen mit Kontakten zu den Mudschahed” (22 April 2013), pp. 4–8. Reference is made to the complainants’ application for a review, submitted to the Federal Office for Migration on 6 May 2013, and to their appeal to the Federal Administrative Court of 11 March 2014 and the Court’s decision thereon, of 28 September 2015. 7