CAT/C/60/D/465/2011 allegations. He claims that he did not file the second appeal because he was not given an opportunity to do so and the State party did not assign a lawyer to assist him. 5.3 The complainant further submits that leave to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court is granted only if new circumstances emerge in a case. Such circumstances could not be identified at that point but only emerged later, owing to the stress and depression he experienced after the rejection of his first appeal and the unlikelihood that the second appeal would be successful in view of his imminent deportation. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 20 December 2011, the State party presented its observations on the merits. It notes that under section 87 (1) of the Aliens Act, asylum is granted on the basis of a wellfounded fear of persecution based on ethnic origin, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion to aliens who, because of this fear, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of their home country. Under section 88 (1), if the requirements of section 87 are not met, subsidiary protection may be granted if substantial grounds have been shown for believing that aliens, if removed, would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm and would be unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. Serious harm means: (a) the death penalty or execution; (b) torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (c) serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts. Section 88a (1) lists grounds for humanitarian protection if requirements under sections 87 (1) and 88 (1) are not met: an environmental catastrophe; a bad security situation due to an international or internal armed conflict; or a poor human rights situation. Furthermore, according to section 52 (1), aliens may be issued residence permits on compassionate grounds, including health, ties to Finland, vulnerability, or circumstances they would face in their home country. The non-refoulement guarantee is enshrined in section 147. According to section 200, in general, a decision on removal may not be enforced until a final decision has been issued on the matter. Applying for leave to appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court does not prevent the enforcement of a decision unless otherwise ordered by the Court. However, a final decision or a decision that is otherwise enforceable may not be enforced if there is reason to believe that the removal may expose the alien to danger as referred to in section 147. 6.2 The State party refers to the reasoning of the Immigration Service in its decision of 3 May 2010 to reject the complainant’s asylum request. First, the Immigration Service considered that he could still seek the protection of the Russian Federation authorities because he had not specified the outcome of his complaints to the prosecuting authorities filed on 4 December 2007 and 26 February 2008; neither had he indicated that his case had been closed. Second, the Immigration Service considered that there was a possibility for the complainant to relocate within the Russian Federation and that his international travel in 2006 and 2007 demonstrated that he was able to leave the country without obstacles and therefore he did not require international protection. 3 The Immigration Service found that the complainant had no justifiable grounds for fearing persecution, being subjected to serious harm, or being granted humanitarian protection or a permit on compassionate grounds under sections 87 (1), 88 (1), 88a (1) and 52 of the Aliens Act. The Immigration Service considered that his return to the Russian Federation would not be in breach of article 3 of the Convention because there was no risk that he would be subjected to inhuman treatment there or moved to other areas where he would be at risk of such treatment. 6.3 On 9 November 2010, the Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s appeal, stating that the Russian Federation authorities were not generally incapable of providing effective protection, even if some police and other authorities were corrupt and could commit crimes. It was the complainant’s duty to avail himself of the protection of higher authorities when he considered that the subordinate authorities had infringed the law. He had filed two complaints alleging misconduct by policemen. He did not complain before 3 4 His passport was stamped at the Nuijamaa and Vaalimaa border crossing points in 2006 and 2007, and on 13 and 19 October 2007 and 12 June 2008.