CAT/C/60/D/465/2011 the district prosecutor’s office that the authorities had refused to examine his complaint, nor did he present other evidence to support his suspicion that he would not be able to turn to higher judicial authorities in the Russian Federation. The Administrative Court found that the decision not to grant a residence permit to the complainant could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable and that the removal order was justified. 6.4 The State party submits that the Finnish authorities found no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be at risk of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention and referred to paragraph 1 of the Committee’s general comment No.1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3. The State party reiterates that the complainant has not requested leave to appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court and thus failed to exhaust all domestic remedies in the case. Therefore, the complainant has failed to establish an arguable case on admissibility and the merits. The case should therefore be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. Alternatively, should the case be found admissible, an examination of the merits would find that there has been no violation of article 3 of the Convention in this case. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 14 February 2012, the complainant challenged the State party’s arguments on inadmissibility, reiterating that he did not file an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court because the Finnish authorities did not allow him to do so. With reference to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, he states that the exhaustion of the domestic remedies rule does not apply if the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief. 7.2 He claims he would be persecuted if returned to the Russian Federation because of his complaints about police misconduct. He recalls that he was threatened with repercussions if he did not withdraw his second complaint and was warned that false accusations constituted a crime. He should have been granted asylum on the basis of section 88 (2) (subsidiary protection), as there exists a risk to his life and a risk of torture in his home country, and section 88a (humanitarian protection) because of the poor human rights situation there, as demonstrated by recent international reports. He adds that his arrest and mistreatment by the police on 29 July 2007 is explained by his participation in the dissenters’ march in April. Hence, he was a victim of political persecution, in which case sections 87 (acts of persecution), 88a (humanitarian protection) and 147 (non-refoulement) are applicable. Furthermore, owing to a serious and persistent pain in his left arm, he should have fallen under the protection of section 52 (issuing residence permits on compassionate grounds). 7.3 The complainant stresses that his first complaint to the district prosecutor’s office was processed three months after its submission; the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings was backdated to 11 October 2007 because he was provided with the decision only on 10 December. He claims that his case was not given serious consideration. He was not kept informed of the progress of the investigation in relation to his second complaint of 26 February 2008 until his departure from the Russian Federation on 18 August. He did not have the time or energy to follow up the case with the prosecutor’s office. He is convinced that the threatening telephone call received by his mother after his departure related to a periodic check-up by the district prosecutor’s office and the intensification of the investigation into his case. Lawyers in the Russian Federation told him that one cannot win a case against the police. He adds that allegations of torture by the police that are given serious consideration may become life-threatening for complainants, as in his case. The Finnish authorities ignore cases of mistreatment by police in the Russian Federation. He describes a recent death due to torture in a police station in St. Petersburg. 7.4 The complainant explains that relocation within the Russian Federation would not be an acceptable alternative to him as it would involve a declaration of removal and registration of residence in local police stations. Furthermore, he would be questioned when crossing the border and his name would be checked against a database of the ministry of internal affairs, owing to his prolonged absence. There would be a risk that he would not arrive home safely. Moving residence is time-consuming and he would be vulnerable throughout the process, given the background of his case. Moreover, he would need to 5