CAT/C/57/D/611/2014 4.9 The State party submits that the complainant’s account in support of his asylum application is credible. However, it does not believe that the complainant has established a credible risk of torture if returned to Kazakhstan. The State party submits that, when the complainant stayed with friends at their home, he did not have any problems. Moreover, he was able to leave Kazakhstan by lawful means. It is highly unlikely that, after 12 years, he would still be of particular interest to the police officers who allegedly detained and assaulted him or to the Kazakh authorities in general. The complainant provides no information that he is wanted by the authorities. His detention and torture is therefore unlikely if he is returned. 4.10 Various reports show that, increasingly, the national authorities in Kazakhstan have taken measures to tackle abuse by police officers. 15 In a report dated 27 February 2014,16 the United States of America Department of State indicated that the authorities have taken measures against such abuse, including setting up a national preventive mechanism to prevent torture. In 2012, the Kazakh Commission on Human Rights, which advises the President on human rights issues, found that cases of torture and other kinds of cruel treatment still occurred, though not systematically. According to a report by the organization Freedom House,17 “later in 2013 there were a few signs that the authorities were beginning to tackle abuse in places of detention”. Thus, applying to Kazakh authorities for protection cannot be dismissed as pointless and dangerous. 4.11 The State party considers that the complainant will not encounter any problems owing to his ethnicity. According to the May 2014 country information compiled by the Austrian Country of Origin Information Department, 18 23.7 per cent of the population of Kazakhstan is of Russian ethnicity, comprising the largest minority group in the country. Regarding the complainant’s religious identity, in his statements that he gave during the asylum proceedings, he admitted that he never practised any religion, despite being born Christian. 4.12 The State party submits that the alleged problems that the complainant encountered were of local nature and that he can distance himself by relocating within the country, especially to the northern part of the country, where the majority of the population is of Russian ethnicity. The complainant does not cite a lack of medical facilities or social services that could warrant asylum being granted on humanitarian grounds. In view of the above, the State party submits that the complainant has not shown foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to his country of origin. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 16 April 2015, in response to the State party’s observations, the complainant submits that he is claiming asylum not only on the basis of a pattern of gross and mass violations of human rights in Kazakhstan, but also on his personal facts and circumstances that can be seen as substantial grounds for being exposed to a risk of torture if returned to his home country. The State party explicitly confirms that it finds the complainant’s story 15 16 17 18 GE.16-09780 In support, the State party refers to following reports: 1) Freedom House: Nations in Transit 2014 — Kazakhstan, 12 June 2014; 2) US State Department: Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2013 — Kazakhstan, 27 February 2014; 3) Human Rights Watch: World Report 2014 — Kazakhstan, 21 January 2014; 4) Amnesty International, Old Habits: The routine use of torture and other ill-treatment in Kazakhstan, 11 July 2013. Available from www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2013humanrightsreport/ index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220395#wrapper. Available from freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2014/kazakhstan. Available from www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1729_1409729871_kaza-eff-cfs-2014-05.pdf. 7