CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 that were issued for the first complainant were of a simple nature and therefore of low probative value and that these did not state which offence he is suspected of. 8.7 The Committee observes that, even without taking the disputed facts into consideration, it remains undisputed that the first complainant had been arrested and tortured in the past on account of being suspected of supporting separatist activities in Chechnya; that members of his family have been persecuted for such activities; and that the Russian Federation authorities had been looking for him after his departure from the country, as demonstrated by the summonses provided, albeit for a purpose that is unclear. Taking into consideration the general human rights situation in Chechnya and in particular that, according to State party’s own submission, there are credible reports that individuals that are perceived to be connected with militant activities are at a higher risk of being arbitrarily arrested and subjected to torture, the Committee concludes that the first complainant has established a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured if he was to be returned to the Russian Federation. 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the forcible removal of R.G. to his country of origin would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10. As the cases of R.G.’s wife and their four children, who were under age at the time of the family’s asylum application in Sweden, are largely dependent upon his case, the Committee does not find it necessary to consider these cases individually. 11. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainants’ removal to the Russian Federation by the State party would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 12. The Committee is of the view that the State party has an obligation, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, to refrain from forcibly returning the complainants to the Russian Federation or to any other country where they run a real risk of being expelled or returned to the Russian Federation. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above considerations. 1995, para. 11.3; and No. 43/1996, Tala v. Sweden, Views adopted 15 November 1996, para. 10.3; No. 41/1996, Kisoki v. Sweden, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 9.3. 17