CAT/C/63/D/717/2015 the Russian Federation. If, however, the Chechen authorities were to do so, the complainants could turn to the Russian Federation authorities, which the State party believes would offer them protection. Indeed, it is unlikely that the Russian Federation authorities would allow the Chechen authorities to persecute persons outside of the territory controlled by them. In addition, the complainants confirmed that they had no difficulties with the federal-level authorities of the Russian Federation. There is also nothing to indicate that the complainants may be exposed to reprisals by Chechen insurgents outside of Chechnya. It should also be pointed out that any discrimination against the complainants because of their Chechen origin does not constitute treatment contrary to the Convention. 6.7 Since the complainants have the possibility of settling in another region of the Russian Federation, the ill-treatment suffered by them does not suggest, in the present case, that they would be exposed to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention in case of return. In the light of this possibility of internal flight, the authorities of the State party did not examine in detail the credibility of the complainants’ allegations. However, they expressed doubts about it. They noted, inter alia, that A.Sh. had submitted two different versions of the events related to the origins of his gunshot wound (see paras. 2.14 and 2.15 above). The complainants also failed to submit evidence concerning the alleged closure of their shop, confiscation of the car, interrogation of A.Sh. or existence of the declaration stating that A.Sh. would collaborate with the authorities (see para. 2.15 above). The State party submits, in this context, that an allegation is insufficiently substantiated when, on an essential point, the precise and circumstantial details are lacking, which proves that the complainants have not experienced the events described. Likewise, an allegation is implausible when, on an essential point, it is contrary to logic or general experience. 6.8 Another element to be taken into account in assessing the risk of the complainants being subjected to torture upon return to the Russian Federation is whether they have engaged in political activities, either within or outside their country of origin. On that matter, the State party submits that the complainants do not claim to have engaged in any political activities in their country or in Switzerland. 6.9 The State party submits, with regard to the state of health of A.Sh., Z.H. and their son Ash.Sh., that it is not of a nature that would expose them to treatment amounting to torture in the case of their return to the Russian Federation. 33 The State party recalls, in that connection, the complainants’ possibility of settling in another region of the Russian Federation, in particular in the Moscow region. This region has medical infrastructure appropriate for their treatment, and appropriate medication could, if necessary, be provided.34 6.10 The State party also notes that, although this aspect is not directly determinative under the Convention, its national authorities also examined in a detailed manner the complainants’ removal in the light of the principle of the best interests of the child. 35 6.11 In the light of the above-mentioned considerations, the State party concludes that there is nothing to indicate that there are serious grounds to fear that the complainants would be seriously and personally exposed to torture upon their return to the Russian Federation. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In their submissions of 8 September 2016, the complainants submit that the personal, real and present risk of torture results from the individual and cumulative effect of the following factors: (a) their family connections with Chechen insurgents; (b) the provision of support to the insurgents by A.Sh.; and (c) the fact that A.Sh. and Z.H. have already come to the attention of the authorities and have been subjected to torture in the past. In this context, the complainants note that the State party did not dispute that they had been tortured in the past. It argued, however, that that persecution had been limited to the local or regional level, that is to say, the complainants had been searched for only by the Chechen 33 34 35 10 Ibid. (para. 4.3.3). Ibid. (para. 4.4.6). Ibid. (para. 4.4.5).