CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 By note verbale of 25 November 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits. It recalls the facts of the case and notes that the complainants arrived in Sweden on 26 December 2010 and applied for asylum on 29 December 2010. On 13 October 2011, the Swedish Migration Board rejected their applications and decided to have them expelled to the Russian Federation. On 25 September 2012, the Migration Court rejected their appeal. On 29 November 2012, the Migration Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal and the decision to expel the complainants became final on 17 December 2012. On 18 January 2013, the complainants claimed before the Migration Board that there were impediments to enforcement, and requested a re-examination of their case. The Migration Board rejected their request on 4 March 2013. The decision was appealed to the Migration Court, which, on 23 April 2013, rejected the appeal. 4.2 The complainants essentially claimed before the Swedish authorities that they had been subjected to threats by the Chechen authorities owing to activities of the first complainant as well as activities of the two sons, who had allegedly been supporting rebels in Chechnya before they fled to Sweden, where they had been granted asylum in 2002 and 2006, respectively. The complainants claim that they were repeatedly visited in their home by masked men who threatened them and demanded that they convince the sons to return to Chechnya. The threats reportedly escalated over time and during one visit, in November 2010, the masked men tore up the complainants’ passports and threatened to abduct their daughter. The first complainant was reportedly assaulted on that occasion and gunshots were fired in the apartment. After that incident, the third complainant left to live with her uncle in Grozny. 4.3 The State party notes that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, the Committee should not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and also notes that it is not aware whether the present case was or is the subject of any other such investigation or settlement. Furthermore, the State party acknowledges that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case as required by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 4.4 The State party maintains that the complainants’ assertion that they are at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention if returned to the Russian Federation fails to rise to the minimum level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. According to the State party, the present communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 1 Should the Committee declare it admissible, the issue before the Committee would be whether the forced return of the complainants to the Russian Federation would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 4.5 The State party notes that when determining whether the forced return of a person to another country would constitute a violation of article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in that country. However, as the Committee has repeatedly emphasized, the aim of such a determination is to establish whether the 1 4 The State party refers to communication No. 216/2002, H.I.A. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 2 May 2003, para. 6.2.