CAT/C/54/D/556/2013 8.4 The Committee notes the claim that the complainant and his brother were arbitrarily arrested and tortured, and that his brother was sentenced to a prison term following an unfair trial. The Committee also notes that, according to the complainant, the Migration Board and, subsequently, the Migration Court, both failed to take this information into consideration. 8.5 The Committee further notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past, the question is whether he remains, at present, at risk of torture in the Russian Federation. The Committee notes that, at present, the human rights situation in the Russian Federation remains a matter of concern in several aspects, in particular in the northern Caucasus. The Committee recalls that, in its concluding observations concerning the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation in 2012, it expressed its concern at numerous, ongoing and consistent reports of serious human rights abuses inflicted by or at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials or other persons acting in official capacities in the northern Caucasus, including Chechnya, including torture and ill-treatment, abductions, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings (see CAT/C/RUS/CO/5, para. 13). 8.6 The Committee notes that the State party has drawn attention to inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s accounts and submissions before both the domestic asylum authorities and the Committee, which cast doubts regarding his general credibility and the veracity of his claims. In particular, the complainant provided a copy of his passport with his address registered in the village of Sernovodsk, Chechnya, but his driver’s licence was registered to his address in Nazran, Ingushetia. As a result, doubts persist about his real place of residence. The Committee also notes the sparseness of the information on the complainant’s brother, including his name, description or any identifying information, who, it is alleged, actively participated in rebel groups and was arrested and tortured because of this. The complainant provides little factual information about the specific charges against his brother, no details regarding the alleged mistreatment his brother suffered at the hands of the law enforcement agencies and no information on his current whereabouts. Nor does the complainant provide comprehensive information regarding the fact that his brother was released after only six months of imprisonment, considering that the Russian criminal law foresees much longer penalties for such activity. Similarly, the Committee notes that the complainant provided very cursory information regarding the allegation that his parents’ house was burned down. 8.7 The Committee observes that the complainant merely stated before the Migration Board and the Migration Court that he feared being subjected to torture if returned to the Russian Federation, claiming that he had been tortured in the past and that he would be targeted again. The complainant, however, failed to provide any details about the torture or ill-treatment he had allegedly suffered on a number of occasions at the hands of the law enforcement agencies (see para. 2.2), such as details regarding the identity or the number of perpetrators, or the exact methods of ill-treatment or torture. The Committee notes the absence of any medical records, documents or affidavits from witnesses that could support the complainant’s claims. The Committee also notes that no medical or forensic examination has been sought, by either side, regarding the complainant’s undetailed torture allegations. The Committee notes, however, that it transpires from the material on file that, irrespective of the non-specific nature of the author’s claims in the present case, the State party’s asylum authorities have thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainant in support of his application, but found it to lack credibility in general. 2003; and No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005. 9