CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 as “a climate of pervading fear”, and noted disappearances of government opponents and human rights defenders, reprisals against the families of suspected fighters and intimidation of the media and civil society, all in an atmosphere of “personalization of power”.18 5.6 Furthermore, as to their statement concerning the actions of the masked uniformed men, the complainants submit that practically every Chechen seeking asylum can corroborate such stories. The fact that it is impossible to ascertain the identity of these assailants in no way diminishes the credibility of the complainants’ story. The complainants did not pursue the issue of their harassment with the relevant authorities in the Russian Federation because they feared that such a course of action would be meaningless, since it is “the authorities that are perceived to be the major threat to life and limb”. The general lack of accountability and the ability of the authorities to act with total impunity are two facets of life in the Russian Federation that have been commented on many times by many individuals and organizations. 5.7 As concerns the copies of the summonses provided, the complainants note that “it [was] established long ago that this is how the summonses look”. It is unclear why the State party continues to challenge the authenticity of the summonses on the basis that the spelling of the name of the father of one of the complainants is different in two documents. The complainants note that “in Russian, all nouns, including names, are conjugated in six different cases. For example, a masculine noun/name ending in a consonant receives the suffix –a in the accusative, while a female noun/name with an ending in –a, changes the ending to the Russian –y, pronounced –oo”. 5.8 Finally, the complainants note that, in a document attached to their initial submission letter, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regional office in Stockholm stated that it was not reasonable for a Chechen asylum seeker to seek refuge elsewhere in the Russian Federation. In this regard, they note that the State party has ignored this information in its observations in the present case. 5.9 In conclusion, the complainants maintain that the present communication and their claims are admissible, well-founded and reveal that their deportation to the Russian Federation would constitute a violation of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that in the present case the State party has recognized that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility; accordingly, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its examination on the merits. 18 “PACE urges Russia to fight terrorism in the North Caucasus ‘in line with human rights’”, available at http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/NewsManager/EMB_NewsManagerView.asp?ID=5701. 11