CAT/C/54/D/556/2013 need of international protection.5 The complainant filed an application for leave to appeal before the Migration Court of Appeals. 6 2.6 On 23 April 2013, the Migration Court of Appeals rejected the complainant’s application for leave to appeal. The Migration Court decision of 12 March 2013 became final. The complainant was summoned to a meeting with the Migration Board on 2 July 2013 to discuss his return to the Russian Federation. However, no date has yet been set. The complainant argues that he has exhausted all domestic remedies. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that the Swedish authorities did not adequately assess the risk that he would be subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to the Russian Federation, which would violate article 3 of the Convention. They failed to assess his personal situation, taking into account the persecution to which he had previously been subjected and his brother’s participation in a rebel group. 3.2 He argues that, since he has already been subjected to torture in the past, there are substantial grounds to assume that there is a real, personal risk of this treatment being repeated.7 The Migration Board focused on some inconsistences in his account, despite the fact that they were minor discrepancies. Moreover, these discrepancies could be explained by the fact that, while he is a native speaker of Chechen and fully fluent in that language, on a couple of occasions he was forced to use Russian as the language of the interview, a language with which he is familiar, but not to the same extent as with his native language. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 28 January 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It recalls the facts of the case and provides excerpts from relevant domestic legislation. The State party submits that the complainant’s case was assessed under the 2005 Aliens Act, which entered into force on 31 March 2006. The State party’s authorities, upon examination of the facts of the case, concluded that the complainant had not shown that he was in need of protection. 4.2 The State party submits that, on 31 May 2012, the Migration Board rejected his asylum application and decided to expel him to the Russian Federation. That decision was appealed to the Migration Court, which, on 12 March 2013, rejected the appeal. On 23 April 2013, the Migration Court of Appeals refused to grant leave to appeal and the decision to expel the complainant became final. On 13 May 2013, the complainant claimed before the Board that there were some impediments to the enforcement of this decision, and 5 6 7 4 The complaint does not provide further information or details as to the reasoning of the decision of the Migration Court. The complaint does not provide further information or details as to the reasoning of the decision of the Migration Court of Appeals. The complainant refers to interim guidance provided by the Regional Office for the Baltic and Nordic Countries of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to the complainant’s counsel on assessing the international protection needs of asylum seekers from Chechnya in the Russian Federation, dated 4 February 2011. The document recalls that, in February 2003, UNHCR assessed that all Chechen asylum seekers from Chechnya were in need of international protection. Since then, the situation has evolved positively, after the decrease in the level and scope of military activity, an overall improvement in the security situation and a gradual withdrawal of federal troops from Chechnya. Nevertheless, there are still continuing reports of human rights concerns that may place personal safety or rights at risk, in particular, for members of illegal armed groups and their relatives, political opponents of the federal or Chechen authorities, human rights activists and persons that held official positions in the administration of former President Aslan Maskhadov.