CAT/C/57/D/558/2013 persecuted in the Russian Federation was not credible. As the Federal Office for Migration had done previously, it considered that the information provided by the first complainant regarding the date of his arrest in Chechnya was contradictory, and furthermore he was unable to provide any details regarding the conditions of detention. Moreover, the allegations concerned events that had taken place in 1999. There was no link between the ill-treatment the complainant was alleging he had endured and his departure to Belarus. In addition, in the meantime important changes had taken place in Chechnya, which should have eliminated the complainant’s fear that he was wanted by the Russian authorities. Besides, the first complainant was not a fighter or someone who had connections to the Maskhadov or Umarov regimes. The Tribunal noted that during the two personal interviews, the complainant had not mentioned the ill-treatment he alleged to have suffered after arriving in Belarus; he raised those allegations for the first time in his appeal before the Tribunal, without providing any explanation for not having mentioned them before. In addition, the Tribunal considered that the documents supplied by the complainant did not have any evidentiary value, since they concerned situations other than his. 5 In particular, the Tribunal ruled that the medical certificates issued in Brest did not demonstrate that the complainant had been injured in the circumstances he described. It therefore rejected the claim that the complainant would be at a personal risk of being targeted by the Belarusian authorities if he were returned to that country. 4.4 On 19 November 2010, the complainants requested a re-examination of their case based on the state of health of their eldest son and that of the first complainant himself. They also alleged that the first complainant had been summoned on two occasions by the Belarusian police, on 15 January and 27 September 2010. In its decision of 17 December 2010, the Federal Office for Migration noted that it appeared from the documents submitted that the complainant had been summoned as a witness. Nothing in the documents indicated that he was sought or persecuted by the competent authorities. Taking into consideration the conclusions of the first asylum procedure, the documents failed to provide evidence that, if deported, the complainant would be exposed to a real risk of treatment prohibited under article 3 of the Convention. Since the complainants had failed to pay the required fee in advance, the Tribunal did not enter into the subject matter of their appeal. 4.5 On 1 April 2011, the complainants filed a second request for re-examination, invoking mainly the deterioration of the state of health of the first complainant and reiterating, without providing further evidence, the allegations of ill-treatment experienced in Belarus. In its decision of 15 April 2011, the Federal Office for Migration maintained that the complainants’ allegations regarding the risk of persecution in Belarus had already been subject to careful examination during a previous examination of their asylum claims and that there was a health-care system in Belarus that could ensure he received medical treatment. The second request was rejected by a decision of the Federal Administrative Tribunal of 3 July 2013, which stated that the complainants had not presented any new elements to substantiate their fears and that the first complainant’s state of health had not changed significantly since the first asylum procedure. 4.6 The State party noted the requirements of article 3 of the Convention, made reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, and submitted that it would analyse the case in the light of those elements. The State party submitted that, while the human rights situation in Belarus was certainly worrying, it did not constitute sufficient grounds to 5 4 The complainants had submitted medical certificates from Belarus and Switzerland regarding the first complainant’s state of health, testimonials from individuals in Brest who had witnessed the police seeking the first complainant and harassing him, summonses dated 15 January 2010 from the Belarusian police and a letter dated 27 September 2010 from the first complainant’s mother.