CAT/C/63/D/717/2015 State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 27 June 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It recalled its challenge to the admissibility of the complaint with regard to A.Sh. and his three children for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paras. 4.1 and 4.2 above), and submitted that, since its national authorities had not been in a position to express their opinion on the new elements referred to by the complainants, it would limit its observations to the aspects that had been the subject of the domestic proceedings. 6.2 The State party acknowledges that the human rights situation in Chechnya is of concern in many respects. However, this situation does not, as such, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that the complainants are at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the Russian Federation.26 The complainants have failed to demonstrate that they run a personal, present and substantial risk of torture if returned. 6.3 Referring to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, the State party recalls that the torture or ill-treatment that the complainants have experienced in the past is one of the elements to be taken into account when considering whether they would risk being tortured if returned to their country of origin. In this regard, the State party relies on the conclusion reached by its national authorities that “measures of persecution” alleged by the complainants “were limited locally or regionally” (see para. 2.13 above). The State party adds that, in accordance with the practice of its national authorities, under the principle of subsidiarity, asylum or provisional admission is granted only if there is no flight alternative for the persons concerned within their own country. As far as ethnic Chechens are concerned, the possibility of settling elsewhere in the Russian Federation is subject to certain conditions, and follows a review of each particular case. In particular, the person must have a network, such as family, at the new place of residence, that initially could assist with accommodation. Sufficient financial resources could facilitate one’s settlement in a new place. Other factors that should be taken into account include the age, state of health, sex, education and professional experience of the person concerned. 27 The State party refers to the Committee’s recent decision in which the return of an ethnic Chechen to the Russian Federation did not constitute a violation of the Convention. 28 6.4 In conformity with the above-mentioned practice, the authorities of the State party considered that the complainants could settle in the Russian Federation elsewhere than in Chechnya (see para. 2.13 above). In that context, A.Sh. mentioned to the authorities of the State party that he had friends in Moscow who had invited him to jointly open a company in Tver trading in grain crops. According to A.Sh., that activity would allow him to provide for the family’s needs.29 His wife stated that she had an aunt and a cousin in Moscow, both of whom she was in regular contact with. 30 Therefore, the complainants have a personal network and family that could support them initially and assist with their accommodation. Both are relatively young and have a very good education and relevant work experience. 31 They jointly ran a shop selling men’s clothes and video equipment. 6.5 The registration of persons originating from Chechnya in another region has been greatly simplified in recent years, since the persons concerned are only required to register in their new place of residence, which they can also do on the Internet. 32 6.6 The State party also submits that, contrary to what is being claimed by the complainants, there is reason to believe that the Chechen authorities are not in a position to exercise their power outside of Chechnya and thus cannot persecute persons in the rest of 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 See A.B. v. Sweden (CAT/C/54/D/539/2013), paras. 7.3 and 7.6. Reference is made to the decision of the former Asylum Appeal Commission of 14 June 2005 in T.V., JICRA 2005/17, consideration 8.3.2; and to Alan v. Switzerland, para. 11.4. Reference is made to A.B. v. Sweden. Reference is made to the transcript of A.Sh.’s substantive interview of 20 December 2010 (at p. 14). Reference is made to the transcript of Z.H.’s substantive interview of 9 March 2011 (at p. 3). A.Sh. has a degree in engineering and worked as a head of the technical planning division of a State design institute. Z.H. is a qualified geographer and accountant, who worked as a schoolteacher. Reference is made to the Federal Administrative Court judgment dated 28 September 2015 concerning A.Sh. and his three children (para. 4.4.4). 9