CAT/C/63/D/717/2015 earlier statement that the summonses did not concern A.Sh.’s own person and were therefore irrelevant to the complainants’ asylum application. With reference to the abovementioned decisions by the Federal Administrative Court, the complainants submit that the competent authorities of the State party had ample opportunity to examine A.Sh.’s assertion — together with the supporting evidence — that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him by authorities in Chechnya. 5.2 Contrary to what is suggested by the State party, the complainants could not lodge a new asylum application on the basis of the summonses, since such an application could only be initiated if a complainant was able to assert new asylum grounds. 21 As the summonses had already been examined by the Federal Administrative Court, the complainants’ assertion about the opening of the criminal proceedings against A.Sh. did not constitute a new fact. The complainants argue, therefore, that they had exhausted all domestic remedies with regard to the institution of criminal proceedings against A.Sh. 5.3 The complainants acknowledge that they did not mention either in the course of their asylum procedure or the review procedure that on 23 January 2013 the Supreme Court of Chechnya sentenced the cousin of A.Sh. to three years’ imprisonment and that the brother of A.Sh. was dismissed from his duties as a police officer on 10 January 2015. At the time they submitted their application for a review, on 6 May 2013, they were unaware of those facts. As to the State party’s argument that they could have lodged a second asylum application on the basis of the new evidence, the complainants submit that a new asylum application is an extraordinary remedy and that they had already explained their grounds for claiming asylum in their first procedure and the subsequent review procedure. The new facts referred to by the State party concern the complainants’ family members and simply constitute further evidence corroborating the complainants’ fear of torture and persecution, which the competent authorities of the State party had already examined on the substance of the case. A new asylum application would not be an effective domestic remedy in their case, as it would only allow the competent authorities of the State party to examine the new facts in isolation from the rest of their case, with the earlier decisions of the State party’s authorities automatically being accepted as accurate. The complainants submit, in this context, that the Federal Office for Migration and Federal Administrative Court decisions in their case were flawed. Therefore, they would have to apply for a qualified review pursuant to article 111 (c) of the Asylum Act. 22 Neither such an application, nor the subsequent appeal against the Federal Office for Migration decision, however, would have suspensive effect.23 Hence, it does not constitute an effective remedy. The complainants add that, in any case, they cannot file an application for a review or a new asylum application on the basis of the conviction of A.Sh.’s cousin and the dismissal of his brother in Chechnya. 5.4 The complainants recall that the new facts concern events in Chechnya and are, therefore, inappropriate to rebut the assumption about the availability of the internal flight alternative. They argue that even if they had filed a second asylum application, the Federal Office for Migration would have dismissed it pursuant to article 111 (c) (2) of the Asylum Act.24 Finally, the complainants submit that if the authorities of the State party considered that the new facts were relevant, they had the possibility of reviewing the complainants’ asylum application under article 111 (b) of the Asylum Act, after they had been informed of the present complaint to the Committee, which they did not do.25 Therefore, there are no effective domestic remedies available to the complainants with regard to the new facts identified by the State party. 21 22 23 24 25 8 Reference is made to the decision of the former Asylum Appeal Commission: EMAR 2006/20, consideration 2.3. Reference is made to Federal Administrative Court judgment 2014/39 of 16 December 2014, para. 4.5. Article 111 (b) (3) of the Asylum Act reads as follows: “The submission of an application for review does not delay enforcement. The authority responsible for processing may suspend enforcement on request if there is a specific danger to the applicant in his or her native country or country of origin.” Article 111 (b) (2) of the Asylum Act reads as follows: “Multiple applications or repeated applications that state the same grounds shall be dismissed without a formal decision being taken.” Article 111 (b) (4) of the Asylum Act reads as follows: “Applications for review without a statement of grounds, or repeated applications that state the same grounds, shall be dismissed without a formal decision being taken.”