CAT/C/68/D/860/2018 3.2 The assessment by the State party’s authorities that the complainant is not in need of international protection is incorrect. The assessment failed to give due weight to his father’s political activities, his own assistance to the insurgency in Chechnya prior to his flight and his affiliation with X. As recognized by the State party’s authorities, X is a known opponent of the regime in Chechnya and would risk treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention by the Chechen authorities upon return there. People previously affiliated with X have been subjected to torture. 3.3 Further, the authorities of the State party have not given due weight to the fact that Ramzan Kadyrov has continued to mention the complainant’s father as an enemy of the regime, a video of which the complainant has shared with the Swedish authorities. In particular, in the context of the complainant’s appeal against his criminal conviction, the advice by the Migration Agency did not take into account the additional documentation from Chechen organizations or the 2015 video of Ramzan Kadyrov, which only became available to the Migration Agency after it had already provided its advice to the Svea Court of Appeal. Additionally, the decision by the Migration Agency of 15 January 2018 wrongly states that no video had been made available to the authorities. 3.4 The complainant also refers to the general human rights situation in Chechnya, which he claims is marked by a prevalence of torture and collective punishment against opposition to the regime. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations on admissibility and the merits, dated 19 July 2018, the State party refers to its relevant domestic legislation and points out that the Swedish authorities considered the complainant’s case in accordance with the Swedish Aliens Act of 2005 and article 3 of the Convention. It recalls the facts on which the communication is based, as well as the complainant’s claim. 4.2 The State party does not contest that the complainant has exhausted domestic remedies. However, it submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the rules of procedure, because the complainant’s claim that his expulsion to the Russian Federation would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention fails to rise to the minimum level of substantiation. However, in case the Committee declares the communication admissible, it should find that the complainant’s expulsion to the Russian Federation would not constitute a breach of the Convention. 4.3 The assessments made by the Swedish Migration Agency and the courts reveal that they thoroughly examined the complainant’s oral and written submissions. The State party recalls that the Committee has previously held that it is for the courts of States parties rather than the Committee to evaluate facts and evidence, unless this evaluation is clearly arbitrary or amounts to a denial of justice. In the case at hand, there is no reason to conclude that the assessments by the State party’s authorities of the complainant’s claimed need for international protection was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. These assessments must therefore be accorded considerable weight. 4.4 Further, the State party submits that while it does not wish to underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation, the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation is not such as to entail a general need to protect all asylum seekers. 4.5 Moreover, the complainant has not shown that he personally faces a real risk of treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention upon return to the Russian Federation. Both the Swedish Migration Agency and the courts in his immigration and criminal proceedings held hearings and interviews and conducted thorough examinations. The complainant thus had several opportunities to support his claim orally and in writing. The Swedish authorities have thus had sufficient information to adequately assess the complainant’s claim for international protection. 4.6 In its overall assessment of the complainant’s case, the Migration Agency found his asylum account to be neither credible nor sufficient to consider him in need of international 5