CAT/C/56/D/565/2013 whether articles about it had been published in the press. All the same they considered that the complainants’ claims regarding their alleged risk of persecution if returned to the Russian Federation were manifestly exaggerated, even allowing for the somewhat repressive practices of the Russian security services. 4.8 The State party’s authorities noted that the events described in the press articles in question took place in 1985, in a State that no longer exists. Therefore, even though the articles were critical of the conduct of the Russian authorities in 1985, the current Russian Government has no interest in pursuing the authors for the incident. The press articles contain no criticism of the current Russian Government, except where, in the version published on 28 January 2010, the author of the article observes that the actions of the pilot of the aeroplane hijacked in 1985 had still not been recognized and that the State bodies responsible should remedy that. It is hard to believe that the Russian Government should have reacted as violently as the complainants claim solely on the basis of such a publication. 4.9 The State party adds that the national authorities have observed, quite rightly, that it is hard to believe that the authorities of the Russian Federation could have persecuted the authors and their friends as described, while the father of S.A.P., who was the key figure in the complainants’ story, was not harassed, yet there was apparently a photograph of him in the newspaper article of 28 January 2010, with the information that he was acting representative of the Yakutia airline company in Moscow. 4.10 Similarly, it is hard to understand why Sergei Nechamkin, author of the articles of 28 January and 18 February 2010, was not harassed while the complainants, whose names are not mentioned in the articles in question, allegedly were harassed. The national authorities have also observed that it made no sense for the Russian authorities to release the complainants twice, if they had really had an interest in pursuing their case. For example, it is difficult to understand why the complainants were not rearrested at the hospital in Krasnoyarsk in 2010. The national authorities have also noted that it is not clear from the complainants’ allegations what scandal could have been caused by the article in question. Following the alleged hijacking, the father of S.A.P. was allegedly suspended and harassed. However, it is difficult to understand why that should have been the case, since there was nothing which could be held against him. The national authorities have also stated that the complainants’ claims that World War III could have been triggered by the hijacking were exaggerated. Moreover, it is also difficult to understand why the complainants, a young couple, would have risked being arrested, imprisoned and subjected to torture for the publication of a story that was long outdated, did not concern them personally and from which they derived no benefit. All the more so, since allegedly they had decided on two occasions, after supposedly being ill -treated by the Russian authorities following the publication of their article, to republish it. 4.11 The national authorities noted that the manner in which the authors left the Russian Federation also undermined the credibility of their story. V.P. had obtained a new passport in 2010. S.A.P. and her daughter had obtained a passport in St. Petersburg on 19 April 2011. Three months later, the applicants left the Russian Federation. These events suggest that their exile had already been planned for some time. Furthermore, the complainants did not encounter any difficulty in obtaining their passports. They were able to leave the Russian Federation by plane without hindrance to come to Switzerland, and were subsequently able to return to the Russian Federation without any difficul ty. If the Russian authorities had really had an interest in pursuing the complainants, those trips would hardly have been possible. It is also not plausible that if the complainants feared persecution in the Russian Federation, they would have taken the r isk, in 2010, of returning there, when they already had the opportunity at that time to file an application for asylum in Switzerland. Finally, the national authorities declared that the documents submitted by the complainants were not acceptable for the purpose of proving their 6/10 GE.16-01900