CAT/C/57/D/558/2013 material and do not raise doubts about the general veracity of his claims.10 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainants were to be removed to Belarus and the first complainant was not under threat of deportation to the Russian Federation. The Committee, however, also observes that the State party does not contest the first complainant’s claim that his only identity document is an expired passport of the Russian Federation and that in order to obtain a new passport, he would have to reveal his whereabouts to the authorities of the Russian Federation. In that context, the Committee finds that in determining whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant could be deported from Belarus to the Russian Federation and assessing the risk that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if deported, the State party has failed to duly verify the complainant’s allegations and evidence, as required by article 3 of the Convention.11 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the deportation of the first complainant to Belarus would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, therefore concludes that the deportation of the complainant to Belarus would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 11. As the cases of R.G.’s wife and their five children, who were minors at the time of the family’s asylum application in Switzerland, are largely dependent upon his case, the Committee does not find it necessary to consider those cases individually. 12. The Committee is of the view that the State party has an obligation, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, to refrain from forcibly returning the complainants to Belarus, the Russian Federation or any other country where they run a real risk of being expelled or returned to the Russian Federation. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above considerations. 10 11 10 See communications No. 21/1995, Alan v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 11.3; No. 43/1996, Tala v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 November 1996, para. 10.3; and No. 41/1996, Kisoki v. Sweden, Views adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 9.3. See communication No. 416/2010, Chun Rong v. Australia, Views adopted on 5 November 2012, para. 7.5.