CAT/C/56/D/565/2013 has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 5 7.4 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainants invoke a violation of article 3 of the Convention because of an alleged risk of persecution by the authorities of the Russian Federation. The Committee further notes that the complainants claim that they were persecuted and subjected to ill-treatment by the Russian authorities following the publication, in September and December 2009 and in January 2010, of an article in which they criticize the attitude of Soviet authorities during the hijacking of an aeroplane that occurred in 1985. S.A.P. claims that, as a result, she sustained extremely serious injuries and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the Committee considers that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence to allow it to conclude that the attested injuries were caused by the alleged acts of persecution and ill-treatment by those authorities. The Committee further notes that the complainants have not submitted any information that would permit a finding that they would be at risk of ill-treatment if they were deported to their country of origin. 6 Although the alleged events occurred in 2009, 2010 and 2011, the complainants did not file a complaint with or seek the protection of the Russian authorities at the time, and the author of the article published in 2011 has not suffered any form of ill-treatment. Given that there is no evidence to show that the criminal justice authorities are still interested in the complainants, the Committee considers that the complainants have not adduced sufficient evidence to show that they would in fact be at risk of persecution or prosecution by the judicial authorities if they were returned to the Russian Federation. 7.5 Similarly, the Committee takes note of the State party’s observations that the way in which the authors left the Russian Federation undermines the credibility of their story. The Committee therefore considers that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that the Swiss authorities failed to conduct an in-depth investigation into the complainants’ allegations during the asylum and review procedures. There is no other material available to the Committee to demonstrate that the complainants face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture in their country of origin. 7.6 The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the author of a communication. In the circumstances of this case, in the Committee’s opinion, the complainants have not discharged that burden of proof. 8. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, finds that the complainants’ deportation to the Russian Federation by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. __________________ 5 6 10/10 See general comment No. 1, para. 9; and communication No. 375/2009, T.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.7. See communication No. 154/2000, M.S. v. Australia, decision adopted on 23 November 2001, para. 6.5. GE.16-01900