CAT/C/57/D/558/2013 not allow the State party to conclude that his deportation would expose him to a personal, real and foreseeable risk of torture. In addition, there was no foreseeable risk that the Belarusian authorities would deport him to the Russian Federation. Therefore, the State party invited the Committee to find that the deportation of the first complainant to Belarus would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainants’ additional submissions 5. On 24 January 2014, the complainants submitted that they were facing difficulties with the welfare institutions of the canton of Geneva. The complainants had been living in the Centre de Feuillasse, a centre for asylum seekers in Geneva, for almost five years. In 2012, the welfare authorities had informed them that they would have to move to another such centre, the Foyer des Tattes, which the complainants alleged was used to accommodate rejected asylum seekers before they were expelled from the country. They were moved based on the decision of the Federal Office for Migration to expel them to Belarus. In January 2014, the complainants were informed orally that the move would take place between 17 and 21 February 2014. The complainants were concerned that they would be deported despite the Committee’s interim measures request. State party’s additional observations 6. On 7 March 2014, the State party submitted that the complainants’ additional submission did not contain any new information relevant to the alleged violation of article 3 of the Convention in case of deportation. The State party confirmed that, as of 21 February 2014, the complainants had indeed been moved to the Foyer des Tattes, but maintained that no measures had been taken to deport them while their communication was pending before the Committee. Complainants’ comments on the merits and further submissions 7.1 On 5 May 2014, the complainants submitted that their deportation to Belarus would be “disastrous” for the entire family. The first complainant reiterated that during his stay in Brest, whenever he was summoned to the police station he was beaten up and detained for days. He was subjected to such treatment because of his Chechen origins and because he was considered an opponent of the Kadyrov regime. He maintained that upon arrival in Belarus, he would be summoned to the police station and asked to justify why he had not responded to the summonses he had been sent during the previous nine years. Knowing the brutality of the Belarusian police, its methods of detention and torture, the consequences would be “disastrous” for the first complainant. He maintained that the State party should analyse the level of corruption and human rights violations in Belarus. 7.2 The first complainant also maintained that his deportation to the Russian Federation would be “disastrous”. While the situation in Chechnya might not be the same as it had been in 1999, currently Chechens who had fled were being “called back to their country”. He referred to the case of his cousin, who had fled during the war, returned at an unspecified date, “after being called by the authorities” and had been assassinated. The real intention of the current government of Chechnya was not to welcome back the diaspora, but to eliminate all potential opponents to the regime. He submitted that the current regime and the Russian police were working closely together and were responsible for his arrest, imprisonment and torture back in 1999. He was released after 10 days, but only after having signed a document undertaking to collaborate closely with the Russian authorities by spying, “denouncing and committing illegal or terrorist acts”. He alleged that he would be denounced by one of his compatriots as soon as he reached his village, and that people had inquired about him several times at his mother’s house regarding his whereabouts and had said that he should come back and work for his country instead of “betraying” it, as he had 6