CAT/C/63/D/717/2015 passport.9 It noted A.Sh.’s own assertions that he was not searched for by the police and that he never had problems with the federal-level authorities. The Federal Office for Migration stressed that A.Sh. and Z.H. had an above-average level of education and relevant work experience that would allow them to provide for their family’s needs and build a new life in the Russian Federation. Finally, the Federal Office for Migration emphasized that a large part of the Chechen population traditionally lived outside of Chechnya. The earlier system of authorized residence (propiska) had been abolished in 1993. The authorities of the Russian Federation only take note of a citizen’s decision to settle down in a certain area. Although some areas try to prevent uncontrolled settlement by adopting restrictive administrative measures, such measures have been revoked by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as anti-constitutional. 2.14 On 2 February 2012, the complainants appealed against the Federal Office for Migration decision, to the Federal Administrative Court. They argued that the question of an internal flight alternative was only relevant once a well-founded fear of persecution had been established. A.Sh. clarified that, contrary to his initial testimony, a gunshot wound had been inflicted on him by an officer of the army of the Russian Federation during an identity check operation on 3 December 2000, and not during the first military campaign of the army of the Russian Federation in Chechnya. The complainants also submitted copies of the summonses (see para. 2.9 above) and the translations of them into German. They used this opportunity to inform the Federal Administrative Court about the birth of their third child, A.M.Sh., in Switzerland on 23 December 2011. In its interim decision dated 21 February 2012, the Court stated that the appeal was devoid of any prospects of success. On 28 February 2012, the complainants submitted copies of medical certificates and the translations of them into German. 2.15 On 24 May 2012, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. It considered that A.Sh. had lied to the Swiss authorities, as he initially stated that his gunshot wound had been received during the first military campaign of the army of the Russian Federation in Chechnya but later claimed that it had been inflicted by a Russian soldier during a search operation in 2000. The Court did not accept the argument of A.Sh. that he did not initially tell the truth about the origins of his gunshot wound out of fear of being considered a Chechen insurgent by the Swiss authorities. In that context, the Court noted that, in any event, the alleged incident had taken place more than 10 years before he had left the Russian Federation and that it was therefore unrelated to his departure. The Court confirmed the decision of the Federal Office for Migration that an internal flight alternative existed under certain conditions for Russian Federation citizens of Chechen ethnicity. That is to say, asylum seekers of Chechen ethnicity do not fear collective persecution on the territory of the Russian Federation, except when they cannot receive effective protection from the authorities in the alternative place of residence because they are persecuted by the federal-level authorities. In the present case, the Court considered that the complainants, who feared persecution by the Chechen authorities, could approach the Russian Federation authorities for effective protection. The Court specifically noted in that context that A.Sh. did not have any problems with the federal-level authorities of the Russian Federation and could therefore count on their protection. Consequently, the Court stated that the Federal Office for Migration could dispense with the requirement of determining whether or not there existed a well-founded fear of persecution prior to deciding on the availability of the internal flight alternative in the present case. Lastly, the Court questioned the complainants’ credibility, since they had adapted their account of the facts during the course of the asylum procedure, and had failed to submit evidence concerning the alleged closure of their shop, confiscation of the car, interrogation of A.Sh., existence of the declaration stating that A.Sh. would collaborate with the authorities, and so on. The Court was not convinced by the explanations provided by the complainants in that regard, since the uncle of A.Sh. was a high-ranking police officer in Grozny, who should have had access to the aforementioned evidence and could have forwarded it to the complainants. The Court also considered that, since the summonses did not involve criminal proceedings against A.Sh. but served only as 9 4 Reference is made to the transcripts of A.Sh.’s screening interview of 10 November 2010 (at p. 6) and of his substantive interview of 20 December 2010 (at p. 15).