CAT/C/66/D/729/2016 assessment. The State party wishes to recall that, according to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, due weight must be given to findings of facts made by organs of the State party concerned. 4.11 The State party notes substantial inconsistencies in the submissions made by the complainant. For example, he stated that the last contact he had with the Chechen authorities was in 2007. Before the Migration Court, however, he claimed that after he left the Russian Federation the authorities had summoned him for interrogation and had threatened his wife and taken her travel documents. In his application to the Migration Agency dated 5 June 2015, the complainant stated that he had spoken to his father over the phone and that his father had subsequently been assaulted by the police and the police had set his father’s house on fire. However, the complainant did not submit any documentation to support those claims. A copy of a certificate, dated 10 December 2014, was appended to the asylum application, stating that the complainant was wanted in Chechnya due to his connections with illegal armed rebels whom he assisted from 2012 to 2014. However, the complainant himself stated that he had helped only his cousin in 2008 and that his cousin was killed in 2009. 4.12 In his submission to the Committee, the complainant states that it was his wife’s entreaties that stopped the law enforcement officers from taking him away. In his earlier testimony to the Migration Agency, it was his mother who stopped the potential abduction of the complainant by the law enforcement agents. In an overall assessment, the inconsistencies in the complainant’s story and the late submission of additional documents cast doubt on the general credibility of his story. 4.13 As for the complainant’s claims regarding risks related to relatives of the deceased police officer, the State party confirms that it is not disputed that the national authorities could not afford the complainant protection in Chechnya against the blood feud. Therefore, it must be assessed whether it is “reasonable and relevant” for the complainant to seek internal refuge in another part of his country of origin. The complainant claims that he would be registered by local authorities anywhere in the Russian Federation, and that he does not have any relatives outside of Chechnya. The complainant submitted a letter from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) dated 4 February 2011, in which it states that the question of an internal flight alternative should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the individual circumstances of the case. According to their assessment, the internal flight alternative should not be considered available to Chechen asylum seekers fleeing persecution. 4.14 The State party notes that the alleged threat against the complainant emanates from non-State actors. Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as severe pain or suffering inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other persons acting in an official capacity. Therefore, the risk from non-State actors falls outside of the scope of article 3 of the Convention.5 The complainant submits that he suspects that the authorities are complicit in the threats against him and his family, given that the deceased was a police officer. The risk of torture, however, must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 6 The complainant’s suspicion is not sufficient to conclude that his expulsion to the Russian Federation would constitute a violation of the Convention. 4.15 The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence in which it found that a complainant failed to substantiate that he would be unable to live a life free of risk of torture in a case where he also failed to establish a personal, present and foreseeable risk of being tortured. 7 While the resettlement within the country of origin may constitute a hardship for the complainant and his family, that does not amount to torture by itself. It is necessary to identify areas of the country to which it could be considered safe for the complainant to return. 5 6 7 4 The State party refers to G.R.B. v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/83/1997), para. 6.5. The State party refers to A.B. v. Sweden (CAT/C/54/D/539/2013), para. 7.9. The State party refers to B.S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/32/D/183/2001), para.11.5.