CAT/C/68/D/860/2018 protection. Specifically, in its first-instance decision of 26 August 2013, the Migration Agency did not deem credible the complainant’s account of his contacts with the Russian authorities or of his whereabouts when his passport was issued in 2004. It considered that the stamps in his domestic passport from 2004 and 2006, as well as the registration of his children in it, showed that the complainant was present in the Russian Federation in 2004 and 2006 and was in contact with the Russian authorities. 4.7 Further, the Migration Agency disputed the claimed authenticity of the certificate from Chechnya’s representation abroad and the letter, allegedly from the representative of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, owing to their simple nature, lack of stamps, misspellings and lack of clarity as to their sources. 4.8 The Migration Agency also questioned the complainant’s account of the decision by the Egyptian authorities to expel his father to Turkey, given that it had been the Russian authorities that had requested his arrest. The Migration Agency also found implausible the complainant’s account that the authorities in Dubai had withdrawn his residence permit and decided to expel him to Azerbaijan, where he would not be entitled to stay or remain, and which furthermore had an extradition agreement with the Russian Federation. The Migration Agency disputed the complainant’s claim that his involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood would have constituted a ground for his expulsion from Dubai. 4.9 Additionally, the return to the Russian Federation of the complainant and his family and the issuance of Russian travel documents and other official documentation to them shows that the Russian authorities have not had a particular interest in the complainant. The complainant has presented no new information or evidence to the Committee that would merit another conclusion. 4.10 The complainant argues that the Migration Agency incorrectly stated in its decision of 15 January 2018 that he had not shared a link to the 2015 video of Ramzan Kadyrov. However, in the complainant’s criminal case, the Svea Court of Appeal expressly referred to the video in its judgment and the video must therefore be deemed to have been included in the examination by the court. Further, the complainant had the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Migration Agency of 15 January 2018. The Migration Court would then have had an opportunity to decide to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order. While an appeal would not have automatically suspended the enforcement of the expulsion order, the enforcement of the order had been suspended following the Committee’s request for interim measures. Thus, the complainant had access to an effective legal remedy. 4.11 With regard to the complainant’s claim for protection because of his father’s political activities, the State party recalls that the complainant remained in his home town after his father’s flight in 1999, got married, worked and assisted the rebel movement with food and lodging. He did not claim that he was sought out or subjected to ill-treatment on account of his father’s activities or his religion during this time, or that his father continued his political activities after 1999. Moreover, the complainant did not resolve credibility issues pertaining to his account of the interrogation and torture. 4.12 The complainant’s account that he risks treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention upon return to the Russian Federation because of his association, through a criminal conviction in Sweden, with X is speculative. The alleged summons for interrogation in Chechnya does not mention the crime of which the complainant is suspected nor when it was issued. The entire summons is written in the same handwriting, even though parts must have been filled in by the person who received it. It is questionable that the Russian authorities would send the complainant a summons for interrogation in the Russian Federation knowing that he and X had been sentenced to imprisonment in Sweden and thus would be unable to abide by the summons. Further, the complainant did not know X before he entered Sweden and has not claimed any political or religious affiliation with him. If the Russian authorities were aware of the joint conviction of the complainant with X in Sweden, their association would be limited to the crime they had committed. The State party therefore contests the complainant’s claim that the Russian authorities would find reason to interrogate the complainant about X or to subject him to ill-treatment. 6