CAT/C/58/D/616/2014 to Shatoy district, where he claims to have been tortured. To the Migration Court, however, the complainant stated that he moved to Grozny in 2008 and that he was arrested and tortured several months after that and then managed to escape. Furthermore, he claimed that one of his brothers was arrested in 2009 and that that brother was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for having helped the complainant. The State party finds it remarkable that the complainant was not prosecuted and sentenced on the same basis as his brother. The State party further notes that the complainant did not provide any documentation to prove that his brother had indeed been prosecuted and sentenced. 4.15 In conclusion, the State party reiterates that the complainant failed to produce proper identification and proof of residence, and provided contradictory statements and facts. The State party therefore considers that the complainant failed to fulfil the requirements that the threat of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. Consequently, his expulsion to his home country would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Additional information by the complainant 5.1 In reply to the State party’s observations, on 16 January 2016 the complainant submits that the human rights situation in Chechnya is very different from that described by the State party. He refers to a report published by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden that had also been cited by the State party.10 In that report, the Russian administration is characterized by widespread corruption and human rights activists, journalists and whistle-blowers are said to be harassed and subjected to violence, at times so serious as to be fatal. According to the report, the most serious violations still occur in the northern Caucasus, where, in the name of fighting terrorism, the civilian population is subjected to torture, arbitrary arrests and kidnappings. 5.2 The complainant also refers to “unconfirmed reports about political murders and disappearances” sanctioned by the authorities, which he submits clearly demonstrate a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Various organizations have described the situation in Chechnya as serious, using descriptions such as an “atmosphere of terror” and a “climate of pervading fear”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for accountability for murders, intimidation and harassment. Similarly, Human Rights Watch, in “World report 2014: Russia”, in addition to listing a similar litany of abuses, mentions sentencing to compulsory psychiatric treatment. 5.3 The complainant submits that the internal guidelines of the Migration Board call for an expert or specialist in forensic medicine to be appointed to examine applicants who claim to have been subjected to torture in the past, with the costs of such examination to be covered by the State party. The Migration Board and the Migration Court chose to ignore their own guidelines, which indeed should be construed as a denial of justice. Additional information by the State party 6.1 In its response of 29 April 2016 to the counsel’s comments, the State party reiterates its position that, while it does not wish to underestimate the concerns regarding the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation and especially in the northern Caucasus, the situation in itself does not establish the risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The complainant’s return to the Russian Federation would entail a breach if he could show that he is personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3. 10 Available only in Swedish. 5