CAT/C/63/D/732/2016 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee recalls that for a claim to be admissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. 4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly unfounded owing to a lack of substantiation. The Committee notes the complainants’ claim that they would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention due to their involvement in an alleged blood feud in their home village from which domestic authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect them. The Committee recalls that the State party’s obligation to refrain from forcibly returning a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture is directly linked to the definition of torture as found in article 1 of the Convention. For the purposes of the Convention, according to article 1, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the issue whether the State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 5 In this regard the Committee notes that, in their statements before the Migration Agency, the complainants described the village chief, with whom they were involved in the feud, as lacking significant power and influence over domestic authorities as his influence was centred on their home village. The Committee therefore finds that the complainants have not sufficiently substantiated their claim that, upon their return to the Russian Federation, they would be at risk of suffering treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention because of their involvement in a blood feud, with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or of other persons acting in an official capacity. 7.4 The Committee notes that the complainants have also claimed that they would be at risk of ill-treatment by the Chechen and Russian authorities as they have been accused of collaborating with the rebel movement in Chechnya. The Committee notes that, in their complaint, the complainants have not provided any further information or explanation as to why they would be suspected of collaborating with rebels and therefore finds that they have failed to substantiate this part of their complaint for purposes of admissibility. 7.5 The Committee notes that the complainants have also claimed that A.Z. would be at risk of being charged with murder and driving under the influence if returned to the Russian 4 5 See, inter alia, Z. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/555/2013), para. 6.3. See, inter alia, M.P.S. v. Australia (CAT/C/28/D/138/1999), para. 7.4 and M.F. v. Sweden (CAT/C/41/D/326/2007), para. 7.5. 5