CAT/C/68/D/860/2018 not of itself determinative in answering the question as to whether the complainant runs such a risk now.7 12.8 As for the complainant’s fear of Ramzan Kadyrov’s interest in him owing to his father’s political activities, the Committee notes that while the State party objects to the complainant’s assertion that it has not contested some of his claims and while it reaffirms that he has not submitted written evidence in this regard, the Swedish Migration Court, in its decision of 28 March 2014, stated that it did not question the credibility of the complainant’s account that Ramzan Kadyrov’s forces had assaulted his father’s home in 1999. The Committee further notes that the complainant maintains that the continued interest of Ramzan Kadyrov in him is evident from the 2015 video of him stating that he “previously killed people such as them”, referring to the complainant’s father, and from the summons ordering the complainant to appear for interrogation. 12.9 In that regard, the Committee notes the State party’s observation that much time has passed since the complainant’s father was last politically active in 1999. Likewise, the complainant’s claimed assistance to Chechen rebels occurred a long time ago and ceased 14 years before he received the summons to appear for interrogation in 2016. 12.10 Further, the Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant has returned to the Russian Federation and that his wife and children, two of whom bear the complainant’s last name, obtained passports from Russian embassies in 2006, 2011 and 2012, that they had no problems in doing so and returned to the Russian Federation four or five times for family visits. Moreover, as noted by the Swedish Migration Agency in its decision of 26 August 2013, the complainant’s wife had stated that almost everyone knew of her father-in-law and that she was married to his son, and while she tried to avoid attention while in Chechnya, she did obtain a marriage certificate from the local authorities. While the complainant’s wife was questioned about her identity, her veil and the father of her children, the complaint does not state that during their visits to the Russian Federation they suffered any problems that would support the complainant’s claim that he runs a risk of treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that the complainant and the State party disagree as to whether, in addition to his return for one day in 2005, the complainant also returned to the Russian Federation on other occasions. The Committee observes that the complainant’s domestic and international passports appear to contradict each other in that regard and that the State party’s authorities did not find the complainant’s account of how he obtained his international passport to be credible. It also observes that the State party concluded that his domestic passport had been tampered with. It further observes that the repeated contacts of his wife and children, two of whom bear his last name, with the Russian authorities and their visits to the Russian Federation, in a context where their identities are well-known but did not lead to problems, does not support the complainant’s contention that he runs a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 1 upon return to the Russian Federation on account of the events prior to those contacts. 12.11 As for the complainant’s claim concerning his association with X, through a joint conviction and as further suggested by the summons, which he believes to relate either to his assistance to the rebel movement or to his association with X, the Committee notes the State party’s contention that the complainant’s explanation of the summons is speculative and does not demonstrate that he is being sought in the Russian Federation in connection with X. It also notes the State party’s contention that the Russian authorities would have no reason to associate the complainant with X, other than the fact that they were convicted together in Sweden. Furthermore, the Committee notes, as observed by the State party, that the summons was drafted in the same handwriting throughout and does not mention the crime of which the complainant is suspected. It also notes that while the complainant explains that he is does not know if the Russian authorities have followed up on his noncompliance with the summons given that his detention since 2015 has rendered him unable to research the matter further, the State party observes that the complainant’s detention clearly did not preclude him from receiving the summons in the first place. The Committee 7 See, for example, X, Y and Z v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/61/1996), para. 11.2; and B.N.T.K. v. Sweden (CAT/C/64/D/641/2014), para. 8.7. 11