CAT/C/56/D/565/2013 allegations. For example, the evidence submitted to the Federal Office for Migration, such as the articles relating to the hijacking, has no probative value, since at the very most it confirms that the articles were published, but that does not in any way establish what the consequences were for the authors. Similarly, with regard to the medical certificates produced by the applicants, the national authorities noted that they have very little probative value. 4.12 The State party further explains that, according to the police reports drafted in connection with the episodes of domestic violence at the complainants’ home, one of the causes of the violence was the fact that V.P. was visiting Russian dating sites. This finding is not consistent with the complainants’ statements that they wished at all costs to keep their whereabouts unknown and that, consequently, they cannot contact their relatives in the Russian Federation. In addition, V.P. told the police that he wished to return to the Russian Federation, which is difficult to reconcile with the fear of ill treatment upon return. In view of the foregoing, the State party fully endorses the reasons given by the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court concerning the lack of credibility of the authors’ allegations. The authors’ assertions that they would risk being subjected to torture if returned to the Russian Federation do not seem to be based on real events and are insufficiently substantiated. Before the Committee the complainants essentially repeat their story, without making it any more plausible. 4.13 The two new medical certificates submitted by the authors to the Committee, drawn up in Switzerland and dated 23 October and 1 November 2013, are unlikely to bring into question the findings of the national authorities, insofar as they certify that the complainants had psychological problems but give no evidence of what caused them. The complainants have therefore produced no new evidence proving their actual persecution by the Russian authorities. Yet in view of their allegations, the national authorities had every right to expect them to do so. The complainants claim that their home was set on fire, that a friend was murdered and that gunshots were fired at th em. They also claim that they have been arrested on two occasions and have filed a complaint with the Russian public prosecutor ’s office, to which the office allegedly replied. It is therefore hard to believe that the complainants are unable to furnish documentary evidence of these events, since they relate, on the one hand — with regard to their correspondence with the public prosecutor ’s office — to official acts which are generally well documented and, on the other hand, to events that should have been reported in the press. 4.14 The State party also underlines that S.A.P.’s state of health is not a relevant criterion in determining whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants risk being subjected to torture if deported. Accordingly, the comments on the health of S.A.P. are purely for information purposes. Moreover, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the aggravation of an individual’s physical or mental state of health due to deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of other factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the Convention. 3 As noted by the Federal Administrative Court, the complainants’ problems can be treated in the Russian Federation. The State party has therefore concluded that there is no indication of any substantial grounds for fearing that the authors would be specifically and personally at risk of torture if returned to the Russian Federation. Their allegations and the evidence provided do not support the conclusion that deporting the complainants would expose them to a real, specific and personal risk of being subjected to torture. Therefore, the deportation of S.A.P., V.P. and their children to the Russian Federation would not constitute a violation of the State party’s international obligations under article 3 of the Convention. __________________ 3 GE.16-01900 Cf. for example A.A.C. v. Sweden, communication No. 227/2003, para. 7.3. 7/10