CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 decision to expel them given that, since they had not complied with the summons, they were wanted by the authorities. In support of this claim they submitted arrest warrants from the prosecution office in Grozny. The complainants allege that the arrest warrants, which have been sent to the police and the security services, state that the complainants must be apprehended.15 The complainants have not explained how they managed to obtain those documents. In addition, the State party notes that arrest warrants are internal documents circulated only among authorities and to which an individual should normally have no access. Consequently, the State party is of the view that the complainants have not made their alleged need of protection probable by the submission of those documents. 4.23 Moreover, the acts of violence and assaults that the complainants allege that they have been subjected to are to be considered as criminal acts by private individuals. In this light, the State party also shares the migration authorities’ conclusion that it is primarily the duty of the Chechen authorities to protect their people from criminal acts committed by private individuals. According to available country-of-origin information, the Russian Federation does provide protection against such criminal acts as the complainants claim to have been subjected to.16 No evidence has been brought forward in the present case to suggest that the Chechen authorities would lack the will or the capacity to protect the family from such criminal acts. Therefore, should the complainants be subjected to such acts upon return to Chechnya they should contact the authorities for protection. 4.24 In the light of the above, the State party maintains that the circumstances invoked by the complainants are not sufficient to show that the alleged risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment fulfils the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Accordingly, the enforcement of the expulsion order would, under the present circumstances, not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Since the complainants’ claim under article 3 fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. 4.25 In view of the prevailing situation in Chechnya as described in the aforementioned country reports, the State party notes that it is also possible and reasonable for the complainants to consider resettling in another part of the Russian Federation if they feel at risk of being exposed to criminal acts. It appears from relevant Russian law that a person is not obliged to return to his or her hometown to cancel his or her previous registration before settling in a new place, and the complainants would thus be able to settle in a new place of residence immediately upon return to the Russian Federation and register there.17 4.26 In sum, the State party maintains that the present communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure or, in the alternative, that the present communication reveals no violation of the Convention. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits In reply to the State party’s observations, on 6 February 2014, the complainants firstly submit that the State party’s arguments are not only contrary to the existing reports concerning the situation in the Russian Federation, but also to the report on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation prepared by the State party’s own office for foreign affairs. In that report, which is available only in Swedish, the situation is described 5.1 15 16 17 Regarding arrest warrants, among other things, see also Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, “Temanotat Nord-Kaukasus: Etterlysninger” (25 May 2013). See, for example, the Swedish Migration Board’s country profile of the Russian Federation, p. 70. Ibid. 9