CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015 Advance unedited version state that the small discrepancies in the complainant’s interviews are understandable as victims of sexual violence cannot be asked complete accuracy in relation to such traumatic facts. For instance, the complainant gave different statements regarding the place she was harassed the first time and the exact date and circumstances of the last rape. However, this should not be seen as lack of credibility, but more as a result of the confusion of a person who has been subjected to various traumatising events which have merged them into one trauma. The complainants recall the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which alleged multiple rapes clearly constitute an infliction of severe pain and suffering and that complete accuracy rarely can be expected from victims of torture. 12 3.3 Furthermore, the complainant states that the FAC’s argument according to which she was not credible because she did not oppose the rapes physically and did not denounce the sexual violence to the authorities was unjustified and cynical. It is clear that the complainant could not physically oppose Jusup as he was threatening her with a gun. In addition, he was the deputy commander of a battalion which made it pointless to denounce him to the authorities. As to the FAC’s argument that she did not hide, the complainant indicated that it was very difficult to find a cheap apartment that she could afford and that in any case Jusup was well connected and could find her anywhere in the Russian Federation. 3.4 Regarding the allegations that the summons did not constitute evidence of the possible persecution the complainants could suffer if returned to the Russian Federation, it is alleged that not even the complainant’s brother knew whether the neighbours accepted the summons personally or whether the police just left them at the door and the neighbours found them afterwards. The complainants cannot explain either why there is not a contact phone number on the summons or why a second page with a reception acknowledgement is missing. They state that Chechen officials, in particular police officers, often work in a non-professional manner and that it is likely that the acknowledgement page is only registered in those cases where the summons are handed out personally. The complainants state that none of these circumstances should be perceived as pointing out to the forgery of the summons. 13 3.5 The complainants further state that the husband’s message to the complainant is a strong supporting evidence of their claims as it shows that he is imprisoned in a place known for its hard conditions which is often used to imprison Chechen rebels (Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Penal Colony 18). Therefore, the complainants are in danger of persecution. The complainants quote several reports from NGOS and Migration Departments of different countries which indicated that there is a climate of repression in Chechnya and that the use of torture by the Russian authorities is notorious, as well as the lack of independent and effective investigations into allegations of torture and ill treatment by officials.14 The complainants also quote reports indicating that law enforcement and security agencies punish relatives and suspected supporters of the Chechen rebel movement. 15 State party’s observations on the merits of the communication 4.1 On 25 February 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. The State party first presents its clarifications summarising some of the facts. Before the Committee, the first complainant alleges that she was mistreated because of the activities of her second husband arrested in 2008. The second complainant, the first complainant’s son, does not make any allegations of ill-treatment or personal risk of persecution in case of deportation. Before the domestic authorities, however, he had raised the risk of being considered the son of his detained stepfather. Moreover, he had expressed 12 13 14 15 4 The complainants quote the Views adopted in Alan v. Switzerland, communication No. 21/1995 The FAC decision of 11 March 2015 states that the fact that there was no reasonable explanation regarding the way the complainant’s brother got the summons constituted an indication of forgery and therefore there was no need to evaluate whether the documents showed signs of forgery. The complainants quote CAT’s Concluding Observations on the Russian Federation, CAT/C/RUS/CO/5, 11 December 2012. Human Rights Watch, World Report 2013, Russia, Swiss Refugee Council, Tschetschenien: Verfolgung von Personen mit Kontakten zu den Mudschahed, 22 April 2013; ECHR I. gg. Sweden, judgement of 5 September 2013.