CAT/C/57/D/558/2013 convoked as a witness, a more detailed description would have been included in the summonses. 7.8 As to the State party’s allegations about the contradictory statements the complainants had made during the interviews, the complainants submitted that they had tried to express themselves as best they could. They also submitted that the interviewers had asked the same questions several times in a different manner, which had led to misunderstandings. Furthermore, their psychological states, particularly that of the first complainant, had not been taken into consideration. Individuals who have been traumatized for long periods of time have great difficulty remembering details. They had also had the feeling, particularly during the second interview in Geneva, that their responses had not been fully understood by the interviewers. They had often been interrupted by the interviewers, which had resulted in incomplete information. During an interview in Geneva on 9 March 2006, the interviewer and the interpreter had laughed at the first complainant twice and the person who “was there to monitor the interview” had had to ask them to stop laughing. The interview in Geneva had lasted for eight and a half hours, during which time there had been several breaks. The first complainant had felt unsettled and it had been very difficult for him to recall the humiliating moments and the awful memories. 7.9 The complainants also pointed out that the State party had not commented on the situation in Belarus, but had alleged that the complainants had been lying from the outset and had insisted that they prove that the first complainant would be tortured if he was deported. The complainants maintained that their statements were credible and consistent with information regarding the violence and corruption in the Belarusian police and that the State party itself had recognized that the human rights situation in Belarus was alarming. 7.10 With regard to the medical certificate issued in Brest in 2004, the first complainant submitted that when he had gone to hospital to seek help for his injuries, the staff had called the police. When the police officers had arrived, one of them had threatened the complainant, telling him that he would be killed if he accused the police of having caused his condition. The first complainant also challenged the State party’s position that only members of political parties risked being tortured. He maintained that since the State party accepted that the human rights situations in Belarus and Chechnya were alarming and the judicial structures were corrupt, it must accept that the methods used by the police were not monitored at all. 7.11 On 19 August 2014, the complainants submitted five additional medical reports, dated in 2014, from their children’s psychologists, attesting that all five children had different psychological and/or developmental difficulties. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State party’s submission that it does not contest that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case and concludes that it is not precluded from examining the communication by the requirements of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 8