2.5 It appears from the enclosures that the authors were no longer in possession of their passports when they entered the Netherlands. The documents further show that the Netherlands authorities were of the opinion that the authors’ story lacked credibility, inter alia, because X did not mention in the first hearing his activities in support for sexual liberty and his wife had no knowledge about his bisexuality; further, it was noted that the authors had never reported the abduction of their son to the local authorities, so that it cannot be said that the authorities failed to give them protection; nor did the authorities find any indication that the alleged intimidation of the authors’ family was linked with X’s activities. In this respect it is noted that the assault in July 1994 was reported in the police report as a robbery and that there is no indication that the alleged abduction of the authors’ son was related to X’s activities or that State authorities were involved. Furthermore, the authors were able to leave Georgia with a valid passport, justifying the conclusion that the authors had not negatively attracted the attention of the Georgian authorities. In arriving at his decision the Netherlands Secretary of Justice also based himself on information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that there was no active prosecution policy in Georgia against homosexuals. The complaint 3. The authors claim that they fear for their life if they are to return to Georgia. In this context, they state that X’s boyfriend was found killed and that X’s parents were assaulted by militia men at their home in October 1994, allegedly because they were looking for X, that his father was abducted and found injured on 15 February 1995 and died on 16 February 1995. They further refer to a report by the Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte in which it is stated that killings are a common measure of repression in Georgia. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 4.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 4.2 The Committee notes that the facts as submitted by the authors relate to a claim of asylum but that no evidence has been adduced that the authors could be personally at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Georgia. The Committee considers that no substantiation of a claim under article 3 of the Convention has been presented and that the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 5. The Committee against Torture decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the authors and, for information, to the State party. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] -63-