CAT/C/56/D/565/2013 before the Committee, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the Russian Federation. 4.3 In their submission, the complainants claim that the political legacy of the Soviet era lives on in the Russian Federation today and that the KGB is continuing its activities. In addition, they allege that, as members of the Caucasian ethnic group, they have to face strong resentment because of dominant Russian nationalism. However, they have not substantiated their allegations in any way. In addition, the national authorities have taken account of the somewhat repressive practices of the Russian security services in their decisions and judgements. The State party recalls that the situation in the complainants ’ country of origin does not constitute, by itself, sufficient grounds to conclude that t hey would be at risk of being tortured if returned there. The State party considers that the authors have not demonstrated that they would run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if they were returned to the Russian Federati on. 4.4 Before the Committee, the complainants submit that S.A.P. was arrested by the police on 14 October 2009, following the publication of her article, and that she was interrogated, insulted, threatened and beaten until she signed a confession. She was subsequently released and thrown, unconscious, into the street. Passers-by found her and took her to hospital where her persecution continued. Her apartment was also set on fire. Following the second publication of the article at issue, on 30 December 200 9, the authors were arrested by the police at their home, while they were entertaining guests there. S.A.P. was threatened, beaten, tortured and raped by the police before being released. She was subsequently hospitalized for three weeks. The second compla inant, V.P., was also threatened and beaten and had to be hospitalized. The State party submits that the complainants told the same story to the national authorities, which carefully examined their allegations. The national authorities found that the compl ainants’ claims regarding the alleged ill-treatment as a consequence of the publication of their article were not credible. Regarding the medical reports produced by the complainants, both during the national asylum procedure and before the Committee, as noted by the national authorities, while they document possible physical or mental injuries, they do not document their cause. 4.5 Concerning the medical reports relating to the psychological problems of S.A.P., the Federal Administrative Court held that torture is always a traumatizing experience, but that it does not necessarily cause mental illness, in particular post-traumatic stress disorder. It follows that the depression and post-traumatic stress disorder with which S.A.P. was diagnosed are not in themselves evidence of the alleged ill-treatment. They were taken into consideration by the national authorities in order to assess the credibility of the complainants’ allegations, in conjunction with other decisive factors. The same applies to the medical report prepared for the authors’ daughter. The State party further states that it is clear from the police records at its disposal that the police had had to intervene on several occasions at the complainants’ home to deal with incidents of domestic violence. According to the police report, the authors’ daughter witnessed an altercation between her parents, during which there was physical violence. Such incidents could clearly also affect the mental state of the complainants and their daughter, and cannot be excluded as the cause of their problems. 4.6 The State party emphasizes that the complainants do not claim to have engaged in political activities in their home country or in Switzerland. 4.7 What emerges above all from the decisions of the national asylum autho rities is that the complainants’ allegations are not credible and that their statements do not support the conclusion that there are substantial grounds for believing that they would risk torture if returned to their country of origin. The State party cite s in full the reasons adduced for these decisions. It should be noted, however, that the national authorities did not question whether the hijacking of the aeroplane in 1985 had actually occurred or GE.16-01900 5/10