CAT/C/66/D/729/2016 4.16 The internal flight alternative is a recognized international and national principle. According to Swedish migration law, the internal flight alternative must be “relevant”, meaning that the asylum seeker must have access to effective protection in the part of the country other than his or her own home to which he or she returns. It must also be “reasonable” that the individual be expected to relocate. In the light of the relevant information, the Swedish migration authorities concluded that the complainant could register in another part of the Russian Federation where there were possibilities for him to find work and to attend school, and that there was nothing to indicate that he would encounter undue hardship if returned to those parts of the Russian Federation. 4.17 Furthermore, the State party notes that the UNCHR letter that the complainant obtained is from 2011, and submits that the situation has significantly changed in recent years and that it has become increasingly common for people from northern Caucasus to move to other parts of the Russian Federation. Regarding the complainant’s claim that the authorities would still find him when he registered at the new location in the Russian Federation, the State party submits that the complainant has not plausibly demonstrated that there is a “personal and real threat” against him emanating from the Chechen authorities. 4.18 The complainant has failed to demonstrate that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would face a personal, foreseeable and real risk of torture if returned to the Russian Federation. Since he failed to attain a basic level of substantiation, the communication should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 Responding to the State party’s comments on admissibility and the merits, the complainant submits that instead of considering the merits of the communication, the State party puts forward arguments based on the fact that the expulsion of the complainant would be time-barred after 11 May 2019. Had the State party carried out a proper investigation in accordance with its own law, the issue would have been decided in favour of the complainant and would not have been brought to the attention of the Committee. 5.2 The State party itself admits that law enforcement agencies in the Russian Federation resort to enforced disappearance, unlawful detention, torture and other illtreatment. The State party then proceeds to ignore its own findings. The State party places importance on inconsistencies in the testimony by the complainant. Those inconsistencies are minor and easily explained by the trauma suffered during the contacts the complainant had with the authorities. According to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder can be as high as 80 per cent in the refugee population. 5.3 Regarding the certificate presented by the complainant to establish that he is wanted by the authorities, the State party notes that the document is of a “simple nature”, without noticing that that is how the certificates look in the Russian Federation. Regarding the absence of documentation on the assault of the complainant’s father, it is accepted as common knowledge that such assaults are hardly ever recorded in an official complaint to the authorities. 5.4 The position of UNHCR is that internal flight or relocation are not options for Chechens, because they are regularly discriminated against in other parts of the Russian Federation. Despite that information, the State party argues that an internal flight alternative is available to the complainant, which could constitute a “denial of justice” on the part of the State party. Moreover, although the State party submits that it only needs to identify areas for internal relocation that would be safe for the complainant, the State party fails to do so. It argues that the UNCHR letter is old, but provides no information as to whether UNHCR has changed its assessment. 5.5 The State party further argues that the pain and suffering that the complainant risks, would be inflicted by non-State actors. The State party, however, fails to consider that because the risk stems from the killing of a police officer, a public official, such an argument does not apply. In addition, such behaviour in the Russian Federation is always carried out with the passive acquiescence, if not the active consent, of the authorities. 5