CAT/C/68/D/860/2018 2.11 On 11 May 2016, the Solna district court found the complainant guilty of preparation to commit murder and of blackmail. It sentenced him to four years and eight months of imprisonment. One of the complainant’s two co-defendants, X, also of Chechen origin, was found to risk persecution if he were to be returned to the Russian Federation owing his political affiliation as an opponent of the regime in Chechnya and for being wanted for several murders allegedly committed during the war in Chechnya. The Swedish Supreme Court had, on 22 March 2013, denied a request for X to be extradited to the Russian Federation on the grounds that he would risk persecution threatening his life or health, because he was considered an enemy of the regime. 2.12 Following advice from the Social Welfare Committee and the Swedish Migration Agency as to the potential effect on his children of the complainant’s removal, the Solna district court also ordered his expulsion, together with a ban on returning to Sweden before 11 May 2026. The district court concluded that the best interests of the children, who, as the Social Welfare Committee had found, would be served by the complainant’s continued stay in the State party, were outweighed by the societal interest in preventing the complainant from committing further offences. The Migration Agency had stated in its advice that it did not consider that the complainant’s ties to Sweden impeded his expulsion and the district court found no reasons to deviate from this view. 2.13 In an appeal before the Svea Court of Appeal, the complainant submitted that as he had now been convicted of a crime in Sweden, together with X, he was now of additional interest to the Russian authorities. On 8 December 2016, pending the appeal, the complainant applied for a residence permit based on obstacles to the enforcement of his expulsion order, for which he submitted testimonials from several Chechen organizations. He also submitted these to the Court of Appeal in his criminal case. The complainant also submitted that there was a new circumstance in that he had now also been summoned to appear for interrogation before the Ministry of the Interior in Chechnya on 6 October 2016. He provided the original summons to the Migration Agency and shared a link to a YouTube video from February 2015 in which Ramzan Kadyrov allegedly stated that he had “previously killed people such as them”, referring to the complainant’s father. In a statement to the Court of Appeal dated 22 February 2016, the Migration Agency reiterated its view that there were no impediments to enforcing the expulsion order. 2.14 In its judgment of 7 October 2016, the Svea Court of Appeal reduced the complainant’s penalty to imprisonment of three years and eight months, but affirmed the judgment of the district court in all other respects, including in relation to the assessment by the Migration Agency that there were no impediments to enforcing the expulsion order. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided on 10 January 2017 not to grant leave to appeal, rendering the judgment final and non-appealable. 2.15 The Swedish Migration Agency rejected the complainant’s application for a residence permit on 15 January 2018. It found no basis for a re-examination of the complainant’s eligibility for a residence permit nor of the expulsion order. With regard to the 2015 video of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Migration Agency found that no such video had been made available to it. The complainant did not appeal the decision of the Migration Agency. He states that no effective legal remedy was available to him because an appeal would not have automatically suspended the expulsion order. 2.16 The Swedish police detained the complainant on 23 January 2018, the day of his planned release from imprisonment, to enforce the expulsion order. Following the Committee’s request for interim measures on the same day, the Migration Agency decided to stay the enforcement of the complainant’s expulsion order until further notice. The Migration Agency, which re-examines detention decisions every two months, has decided to maintain the complainant’s detention. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if returned to the Russian Federation, he risks exposure to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The State party’s removal of the complainant would therefore violate article 3 of the Convention. 4