CAT/C/57/D/558/2013 conclude that the complainant would be at risk of torture upon return to that country. It maintained that the first complainant had not provided evidence to support the claim that he would be at a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Belarus, and that there was no risk of his deportation to the Russian Federation. 4.7 With regard to the first complainant’s allegations that he had been subjected to torture on three occasions in the past, the State party submitted that he had provided no evidence that would not have been examined by the domestic authorities and that the medical certificate issued in Brest in 2004 did not demonstrate that he had been injured by the police in the circumstances he described. Therefore nothing indicated that he had been tortured by the Belarusian authorities. With regard to the ill-treatment he alleged to have suffered in the Russian Federation, the State party maintained that the complainant had not provided evidence from independent sources. 4.8 The State party maintained that it was not apparent from the first complainant’s account that he had been engaged in political activities either in the Russian Federation or Belarus, and that there were was nothing to suggest that he was wanted for prosecution in either country. The State party also maintained that, although the first complainant was the brother of a combatant killed in 1999, he was not a combatant himself and had no links to the Maskhadov or Umarov regimes. He was not therefore a member of a vulnerable group who would be exposed to a risk of persecution if returned to Chechnya. Since he was not wanted by the authorities of the Russian Federation, he would not be subject to the agreements between the Russian Federation and Belarus in judicial and police matters. Therefore, contrary to his statements, he was not at risk of deportation from Belarus to the Russian Federation. 4.9 Regarding the risk of persecution in Belarus, the State party recalled that the alleged discrimination against Chechen asylum seekers was not relevant to the applicant’s case, since he had never filed an asylum request in Belarus. In addition, he had lived in that country for four years with his wife and eldest son. The first complainant submitted two summonses, but according to his statements of 6 March 2006, the Belarusian authorities had not issued an arrest warrant against him and the summonses indicated that he was being called as a witness only. Therefore, the State party concluded that he had failed to prove that he was being persecuted in Belarus. 4.10 The State party noted the complainants’ claim that from the very beginning of the asylum procedure, they stated how difficult their situation was and that their lives were in danger in Belarus. The State party, however, observed that the first complainant never mentioned during the interviews that his life would be in danger. During the interview of 22 November 2005, he did not allude to any problems with the Belarusian authorities. Rather, the only reason he had given for leaving Belarus was the fact that, after the 2004 amnesty in the Russian Federation and Mr. Kadyrov’s accession to power, one of the first complainant’s cousins had returned to Chechnya, where he had been killed. During the 6 March 2006 interview, the first complainant had also stated that in all the years he had lived in Brest, he had never been stopped on the streets and asked for his identity papers or apprehended. The State party considered that the allegations of arrests, detention and illtreatment that the complainants mentioned for the first time before the Tribunal were not credible, and that the first complainant had not explained why he had omitted to mention them previously. Given the fact that the first complainant had no particular problems reporting them during the two interviews, the State party did not consider it likely that a mental block had prevented the first complainant from mentioning possible acts of persecution that he had experienced more recently in Belarus. 4.11 In the light of the above, the State party submitted that nothing indicated that there were substantial grounds for believing that the first complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture, should he be returned to Belarus. His allegations did 5