Advance unedited version CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015 4.14 In this regard, the FAC noted in particular the evolution of the first complainant’s story. At first, Yusup's first rape occurred in his apartment, then in an apartment and finally in a dead-end street. At the first hearing, the first complainant stated that on 28 December 2012, allegedly the date of the last rape, there were soldiers and a woman in the apartment. Subsequently, she insisted that there were only three men in the apartment. Such contradictions must be qualified as important. This is especially so since the first complainant neither consulted a doctor after the alleged rapes, sought the assistance or support of relatives, friends or co-workers, nor did she denounce the facts to the authorities. 4.15 With regard to the information requested by Yusup, the State party submits that the first complainant at no point in the proceedings succeeded in making plausible the reasons why Yusup addressed her instead of questioning directly her second husband who was still detained, of which Yusup was aware. In this context, the State party also notes that the second complainant was not able to mention the name of the restaurant in which his mother claims to have worked for several years. In the light of these contradictions and the absence of evidence, the FAC in its decision of 9 September 2013 considered the first complainant’s allegations that she was repeatedly threatened and then raped by Yusup as lacking credibility. 4.16 As regards the first complainant’s allegations during the second asylum procedure, they were also examined in detail by the national authorities. The first complainant notably delivered two summonses of 1 March and 14 April 2013 that her landlord had found in her apartment in Grozny. These summonses differ from the official form in several ways, e.g. the absence of items (1) indicating in what capacity is the person summoned (suspect, accused, witness, expert, etc.) and (2) permitting to note a telephone number so that the recipient can contact the issuing authority. In addition, the second summons was issued on Sunday (14 April 2013). Faced with these irregularities concerning the alleged summonses, the first complainant could not make them plausible before the national authorities, nor before the Committee. 4.17 The first complainant could not explain in any way why these summonses, according to the complainant, the first ones she received, would have been sent to her almost five years after the arrest of her alleged second husband and eight to ten months after a certain Yusup had recognized her in the restaurant where she used to work. Moreover, it is also not credible that the former neighbors of the first complainant would have acknowledge receipt of the summonses. On the contrary, in view of her continuous absence, they would have had every reason to indicate that she had been absent for more than two months. That the police could have simply left these summonses at the door of the apartment, as suggested by the first complainant, is hardly imaginable. The allegations that the first complainant’s former landlord sent her summonses to her brother who subsequently sent them to her are also not credible. 4.18 With regard to the second husband's messages, the first complainant did not present any evidence regarding their marriage to date. She has declared searching her second husband and, through the Red Cross, received a response from someone claiming to be the wanted person, the second spouse. Contrary to what the first complainant contends, such an exchange of communications cannot, however, either prove the alleged marriage, or establish that the detention of the person concerned is related to former combatant activities. 4.19 The State party notes that the first complainant always uses her maiden name (Z.K.) and not that of the so-called second husband (A.D.). It is therefore unlikely that in case of return to Chechnya, a link would be made between her and her alleged second husband. This observation is also valid for the second complainant, and has been confirmed by the Committee in the case of S.K. et al. v. Sweden according to which "[...] according to the information available on the country of origin, a considerable part of the population of Chechnya has supported the rebels’ actions to some extent, and today the authorities are not interested in people who have only sporadically supported the rebels. The Chechen authorities are more interested in those whom they suspect of having supported or collaborated with prominent rebels, or of providing them with considerable and lasting support ".21 21 See S.K. et al. Sweden, para. 7.7. 7