CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 to have been personally subjected to any persecution on account of their ethnic origins or to have grounds for asylum for this reason alone. In any event, the State party holds that the fact that the complainants belong to the Mialkhiy group is not in itself sufficient to show that an expulsion of the complainants to the Russian Federation would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.19 The first complainant has stated before the Committee that he actively fought alongside the rebel forces during the first war with the Russian Federation, between 1994 and 1996, and that he was of interest to the Russian authorities because of his contact with the leaders of the rebellion, Shamil Basajev and Doku Umarov. However, the State party notes that, before the domestic migration authorities, the first complainant did not claim that the Russian authorities had initiated any formal investigations against him in the light of his alleged contacts with these rebel leaders. Moreover, as is evident from the available country of origin information, the authorities seem to be primarily interested in insurgents who have been active during the past few years, and are no longer showing interest in rebels who have not been active in recent years. The State party also notes that, had the first complainant supported the rebel forces and had he had connections with Doku Umarov, as alleged, it is unlikely that the authorities would have left him alone. Furthermore, even if the first complainant before the Committee claims to have assisted the rebels in 2007 and 2008 by delivering food and medicine, it has never been suggested that this has come to the authorities’ attention. On the contrary, the first complainant stated before the Committee that he kept a low profile during this period of time and therefore did not attract any attention from the authorities. In the light of the above, the State party holds that it is unlikely that these activities would have led to any threats from the authorities against the first complainant. 4.20 Moreover, before the Committee the first complainant has claimed to have openly criticized the regime after the death of his brother in 2003. In addition, he has stated that he was monitored by the authorities after that. However, he has not been able to specify in what way his criticisms were manifested, nor how he could know with certainty that he was monitored by the authorities and that this is not just speculation on his part. Thus, in the State party’s view, the complainants have not plausibly demonstrated their need for protection on this ground. 4.21 The first complainant also claims that he was arrested in 2007, suspected of having been involved in the murder of a police officer. During his arrest, which lasted for 10 days, he claims that he was severely beaten and tortured with electricity. However, during the domestic asylum proceedings, the first complainant has provided conflicting accounts of the reason for this arrest. To begin with, during an interview held by the Migration Board on 13 April 2012, he stated that he was accused of having killed seven police officers in 2007 and that he was arrested and subjected to torture for that reason. However, in another interview held with the Migration Board, on 14 March 2012, he stated that, when his nephew’s friend was killed on 22 August 2007, the police found his telephone number in the mobile phone belonging to the nephew’s friend. The following day, he received a phone call from the police authorities requesting him to submit his SIM card and this led to his arrest. Moreover, during an oral hearing before the Migration Court, the first complainant stated that he had exchanged telephone numbers with his nephew’s friend and that he was later asked by the Grozny police authority to come to the police station. There he was shown a photograph of the body of his nephew’s friend, who, according to the police, had murdered seven police officers. The first complainant was then questioned about his contacts with his nephew’s friend and tortured with electricity. In addition, during an interview held on 3 April 2012, the second complainant stated that a mobile phone containing her husband’s phone number was found next to a deceased police officer and that this was the reason behind the arrest. She believes that this occurred in 2007. The State party, like the Migration Court, finds that the complainants have not given a reasonable 9