CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 in a more serious manner. According to the report, the Russian administration is characterized by widespread corruption and inefficiency, human rights activists, journalists and whistle-blowers are harassed and subjected to violence, sometimes with fatal consequences, and, as a rule, the perpetrators of such harassment and violence are not prosecuted. Further, the authors of the report note that the most serious violations against human rights still occur in the northern Caucasus. In the name of the fight against terrorism, abuses are inflicted on the civilian population in the form of torture, arbitrary arrests and kidnappings. There are also unconfirmed reports about political murders and disappearances authorized by the authorities, especially in the northern Caucasus. It is also noted in the report that in 2011, as in previous years, a series of attacks, threats and acts of harassment against, inter alia, human rights activists, journalists, lawyers and so-called whistle-blowers has taken place. At the same time, assaults by the security forces on the civilian population continued, primarily in the form of arbitrary arrests, kidnappings and torture — as a rule without judicial consequences. Few victims dare to complain, owing to their fear of reprisals. It is therefore difficult to obtain reliable statistics on human rights violations in Chechnya. The non-governmental organization Memorial and the so-called “mobile group” registered 14 disappearances in 2011 and described them as “the tip of an iceberg”. 5.2 The complainants note that the report they refer to is only 24 pages long, yet it contains information describing the Russian Federation as a country in which abuses against arrested persons and detainees and harassment of those who complain about such abuses, for example, lawyers, activists, journalists, whistle-blowers and others who oppose the regime, are routine, and indicating that those liable are not brought to justice and held accountable. Consequently, the complainants are surprised that the State party’s authorities in their evaluation of the complainants’ story chose not to refer to that report, in particular since it was published by the State party’s own office for foreign affairs. 5.3 The complainants maintain that that report clearly demonstrates a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. In addition, as noted in the initial submission, the complainants had been subjected to increasing harassment and humiliation, concluding in the final visit by masked assailants, during which a gun was fired in their home. 5.4 Further, the complainants agree that, in principle, the State party is correct in stating that the Migration Board and the Migration Court are in a good position to assess the information submitted by an applicant. However, the reality is different. In this regard, the complainants note that the Migration Court has stated that it does not have specific knowledge of countries and that it trusts the Migration Board’s conclusions. Thus, it is clear that the Migration Court is, by its own admission, incapable of making a well-informed decision, that it relies completely on one party to the dispute and that applicants’ chances of obtaining an impartial assessment are therefore non-existent. Thus it is not unreasonable to suspect that the evaluation of the facts and evidence by the migration courts has been substandard in the present case, to an extent that it amounted to a denial of justice. The fact that a court has particular expertise in the field of asylum law in itself is not sufficient to ensure that justice has been done in an equitable manner; impartiality and specific knowledge of the countries involved are prerequisites which are clearly missing in the present case. 5.5 The complainants take note of the State party’s argument concerning the allegedly changing nature of the conflict in Chechnya. In this connection, they maintain that this argument is spurious and, in any event, irrelevant. In this connection, the complainants make reference to a former Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe who described the situation in Chechnya as an atmosphere of terror. In addition, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has described the situation in Chechnya 10