CAT/C/57/D/558/2013 ill-treatment and deported to the Russian Federation, where he was also likely to be subjected to torture or killed.2 2.4 The first complainant submitted that, as a result of the torture to which he had been subjected, he had to undergo knee surgery after arriving in Switzerland. He also submitted that, as a result of injuries to his head, he was suffering from neurological and psychiatric problems.3 2.5 In 2005, the complainants decided to leave Belarus and seek asylum. They arrived in Switzerland in November 2005 and applied for refugee status. On 6 March 2007, the first complainant’s application was rejected. He appealed but his appeal was rejected on 14 April 2010 by the Federal Administrative Court. A subsequent request for re-examination of his case was rejected on 15 April 2011 and the appeal against that decision was also rejected by the Federal Administrative Court. The complainants were ordered to leave the country by 7 February 2013. Subsequently, their residence permits were extended on a monthly basis, the latest extension at the time of submission of the complaint ending on 28 August 2013. The complainants maintained that they had exhausted all available remedies. The complaint 3. The complainants maintained that their forcible return to Belarus would constitute a breach by Switzerland of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 26 February 2014, the State party submitted that during the asylum proceedings, the first complainant had indicated that his deportation to Belarus would expose him to a risk of torture and deportation to the Russian Federation. The State party indicated that, since the second complainant and her children had not claimed that they would be at risk of torture if returned to Belarus, the State party submissions would be limited to the situation of the first complainant. 4.2 The State party submitted that the complainants had made the same claims to the Committee as those they had brought before the national authorities. As they had not submitted any new elements, there were no grounds to question the decisions reached by the Federal Office for Migration on 6 March 2007, 17 December 2010 and 15 April 2011, or those reached by the Federal Administrative Tribunal on 14 April 2010 and 3 July 2013.4 The State party maintained that the those decisions were well grounded and that the removal of the complainants to Belarus would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.3 The complainants filed their first asylum claim on 21 November 2005. After hearing the first and second complaints in person, the Federal Office for Migration rejected their asylum application by a decision of 6 March 2007, both because of lack of credibility and lack of relevance of the complainants’ reasons. By a decision of 14 April 2010, the Federal Administrative Tribunal rejected the complainants’ appeal against the 6 March 2007 decision. The Tribunal decided that the first complainant’s allegation that he would be 2 3 4 The complainant submitted a letter dated 30 March 2007 from the parliament of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria confirming that he was sought by the secret services in the Russian Federation. The complainant submitted that he had lost feeling in one side of his face for a long time; he had gaps in his memory, he could not remember events from his daily life and suffered from depression. He presented medical certificates dated 31 March 2007 and 14 January 2011 certifying that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and that he had undergone orthopaedic treatment. The State party provided copies of all the relevant decisions. 3