Advance unedited version CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015 the fear of being forced to serve in the Russian army - a complaint which he does not seem to maintain before the Committee. 4.2 In their submission, the complainants mostly refer to the alleged grounds and evidence in support of their claims for asylum. With the exception of the medical certificate of 27 July 2015, the elements presented to the Committee have already been the subject of a detailed examination by the national asylum authorities. The complainants thus do not bring new elements in challenging the decisions rendered by the Federal Office for Migration (FOM) and the Federal Administrative Court (FAC). 4.3 The complainants applied for asylum in Switzerland on 7 January 2013. They were interviewed personally and separately twice on 14 January 2013 and 26 March 2013. The first complainant was reheard on 7 June 2013 by the FOM before it issued two decisions rejecting their asylum claims. The FOM noted in particular that the complainants’ allegations contained contradictions on key points, were partly contrary to logic and lacked credibility. 4.4 By a decision of 9 September 2013, the TAF noted that the complainants' allegations could prove to be unfounded and, as a result, required them to pay an advance of 800 Swiss francs. In particular, TAF considered as unlikely that, four years after the arrest of her second husband, the first complainant would have been recognized and contacted by "an army official called Jusup", who questioned her about the activities of her still detained husband, then abducted and raped her several times. The TAF also found that the first complainant had presented different versions of the incidents at the various hearings and that she did not seem to have sought help from relatives or co-workers or filed a criminal complaint. As the advance of costs was not paid within the time allowed, the TAF did not enter into the matter of the complainants' appeal. 4.5 On 28 November 2013, the complainants filed an application for a re-examination of their asylum request which was received as a new asylum application. On 24 September 2014, the FOM heard a third, and a fourth time, each of the complainants. By decision rendered on 18 November 2014, the FOM rejected their second asylum claims. It found, among other, that the story of the first complainant lacked credibility and was contrary to logic. In addition, it noted that the police summons presented to support the first complainant’s claim of persecution showed many signs of forgery. With regard to the second complainant, the FOM found that the verbal opposition to Kadyrov's regime in the Chechen Republic was not in itself constituting a risk of persecution and/or a risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Since the second complainant did not receive basic military training, his fears of having to participate in the fighting in Ukraine were not plausible either. 4.6 On 11 March 2015, the TAF, noting several aspects casting doubt on the plausibility of the complainant' claims, rejected their appeals against the FOM decisions. Further, the State party proceeds to explain the reasons of the asylum authorities in support of their decisions in more detail. It examines the case in consideration of article 3 of the Convention, the Committee’s case-law and the specific guidelines concerning the application of this provision in General Comment No. 1 of 21 November 1997,16 which provide that the author must prove that she/he is running a personal, present and serious risk of being subjected to torture in the event of deportation to her/his country of origin. The existence of such a risk must be assessed according to elements that are not limited to mere speculation or suspicion. 4.7 In order to consider whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if deported, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the Convention, in particular the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, in the course of this examination, it is necessary to determine whether the person concerned would "personally" be in danger of being subjected to torture in the country of return.17 It follows that the existence of a pattern of human rights violations, as mentioned in Article 3 (2) of the Convention, does not constitute a sufficient 16 17 CAT General Comment No. 1 of 21 November 1997, paras. 6 and 8. See KN v. Switzerland (CAT/C/20/D/94/1997), para 10.2. 5