CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015 Advance unedited version 7.2 The medical report of 1 February 2017 makes the diagnoses of adjustment disorders, difficulties related to the fact of being victim of crime and terrorist acts as well as difficulties related to the exposure to a disaster, war and other hostilities. These are not entirely new elements. As is apparent from the State party’s earlier observations, at least two of these diagnoses were made in the medical report of 27 July 2015. The State party reiterates that the diagnoses made do not in themselves prove the ill-treatment alleged by the first complainant (rapes), which were considered to be improbable by the national authorities. It further contends that analysis could not be called into question by the report of 1 February 2017 which contains anamnesis established solely on the basis of the first complainant's statements. Regarding the question as to whether the first complainant showed signs of torture or ill-treatment, the doctors only noted that the symptoms observed could be caused by a traumatic event, but without qualifying it. 7.3 In addition, the first complainant has submitted handwritten certificates from several family members of her alleged husband, V.D., who is currently in detention in the Russian Federation. According to her, these documents establish, on the one hand, the existence of a marriage tie between her and V.D. and, on the other hand, the fact that she would be in danger if she returned to Chechnya. In this respect, it should be recalled that mere letters from third parties cannot establish a marriage bond to the satisfaction of the law. This is also valid to the Swiss Red Cross certificate, which shows that Z. K. and V.D. corresponded between 2014 and 2015. Furthermore, the State party points out that regardless of whether or not there is a marriage bond, the fact that V.D. is currently in prison does not establish his former fighting activities. 7.4 As regards the status of single women in Chechnya, the State party recalls that the first complainant is to be removed from Switzerland together with her son, who is an adult now. She will therefore benefit from his support upon their return. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 8.2 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. 8.3 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it should not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party concedes that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8.4 The Committee recalls that for a claim to be admissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. 30 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the second complainant does not make any allegations of ill-treatment in the past or personal risk of persecution in case of deportation. He had raised the risk of being considered the son of his stepfather who is detained in prison since 2008. Moreover, he had expressed the fear of being forced to serve in the Russian army - a complaint which he does not seem to maintain before the Committee. The Committee observes that the second complainant has no political affiliation and has not been in contact with his stepfather since his childhood, he has not suffered any ill-treatment in the past, has not been engaged in any political or other activity as a supporter of the Chechen rebels which would appear to make him vulnerable to the risk of being subjected to torture, nor has attracted the authorities’ attention in any possible way. The Committee therefore observes that the second complainant’s claims are insufficient to establish a direct risk of torture if he is to return to the Russian Federation. In this light, the Committee considers that the second complainant 30 12 See, inter alia, Z.v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/555/2013), para.6.3.