CAT/C/59/D/634/2014 that it would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention to return the complainants to the Russian Federation. In conclusion, the State party submits statistical information on the recognition rates for asylum claims of the 10 largest national groups of asylum seekers that were decided by the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board between 2013 and 2015. 6.8 On 15 April 2016, the State party further observed that the complainants did not argue at any time that they had been politically active, nor did they account for any connection that they may have to the persons mentioned in the articles published on the Caucasian Knot website on 29 October 2013 (see para. 5.9), or any other connection between the articles and the complaint. 6.9 The State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board was familiar with the background information on conditions in Ingushetia when it made its decisions on 12 September 2014 and 2 October 2015. Since no new information has been provided on conditions in Ingushetia that was not available at the time of the Board’s decisions, the articles in question do not give rise to any further additional observations. By the complainants 7.1 On 15 April 2016, the complainants reiterated their arguments summarized in paragraph 5.1. They add that the medical report issued by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group after the first decision of the Refugee Appeals Board corroborates the first complainant’s allegations of torture and confirms that his mental symptoms are consistent with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder according to the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire. The complainants recall that their request for the reopening of the asylum proceedings was based, inter alia, on the aforementioned medical report, although the Board found in its decision of 2 October 2015 that there were neither changes nor new facts that would justify reopening the proceedings. 7.2 The complainants also reiterate their earlier argument that a person who has been exposed to as much torture as the first complainant will experience serious difficulties if returned to Ingushetia, as the risk of the authorities persecuting him and bringing him in for repeated interrogation with accompanying torture is very high. They add that the situation in Ingushetia has even deteriorated in recent months. 20 The complainants maintain, therefore, that they have established a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of their complaint under article 3 of the Convention. 7.3 The complainants further submit that, in its additional observations of 8 April 2016, the State party did not refute their statement on the situation in Ingushetia, which clearly demonstrates the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights (see para. 5.2). With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, they add that, in the present complaint, the risk of arrest and new torture upon the first complainant’s return to Ingushetia after having applied for asylum in Denmark is evident and imminent. The complainants argue that this claim is supported by both information on the grave situation in Ingushetia and in the North Caucasus in general, and especially by the fact that the first complainant has already suffered severe torture and the fact that authorities are still searching for him. 7.4 The complainants also argue that the first complainant has “engaged in political or other activity within or outside the State concerned”,21 which would appear to make him particularly vulnerable to the risk of being placed in danger of torture should he be expelled, 20 21 12 The complainants submit a copy of the article entitled “Journalists and activists beaten and bus torched on Chechnya tour” published in The Guardian on 10 March 2016. The complainants do not provide any further details on this issue.