CAT/C/68/D/860/2018 cousin, because his uncle had bribed the official responsible for issuing the certificate. The complainant’s passport issued in 2004 contains no Russian entry or exit stamps, showing he was not in the Russian Federation when the marriage certificate was issued. One of the complainant’s children does not have a father mentioned in his birth certificate because he was feeling unsafe in that period, following his father’s arrest in 2004. By the State party 10.1 In its further observations dated 6 September 2019, the State party responds to the complainant’s further submissions, dated 11 July 2019 and 8 August 2019. It refers to its prior submission on the summons and, with reference to the complainant’s disagreement with the State party’s appreciation of the summons, reiterates that he should have appealed against the decision of the Migration Agency of 15 January 2018. As for the complainant’s confirmation that he does not know whether the Russian authorities have followed up on the summons he received in 2016 but that he has been unable to research this matter further, given his detention since 2015, the State party notes that his detention did not hinder his reception of the summons. The complainant is only speculating as to the specific allegations brought against him. 10.2 The State party reiterates its position on the complainant’s contacts with the Russian authorities. The Swedish Migration Agency found the complainant’s account of his contacts with the Russian authorities and his own whereabouts when he obtained his international passport in 2004 not credible. His domestic passport stamps and the entry of the children in his domestic passport show that he was in Russia and was in contact with the Russian authorities when his international passport was issued in 2004 and when stamps were entered in his domestic passport to confirm the registration of his marriage in 2006. The Swedish Migration Agency has referred to information on passport procedures in the Russian Federation indicating that one must be personally present when applying for and picking up an international passport, that one must present a domestic passport and that a check is made as to whether there is any warrant out against the applicant. 10.3 As for the complainant’s stated need for protection on account of his father’s position and activities in Chechnya, the State party reiterates its previous submissions in that regard and repeats that it is questionable that the Russian authorities would have had an interest in the complainant on this ground, given that the complainant remained in his home area for three years after his father fled. The complainant has thus failed to demonstrate plausibly that he runs a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention upon return to the Russian Federation, and the complaint should be declared inadmissible. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 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. 11.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that in the present case, the State party has not contested the complainant’s assertion that he has 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. 11.3 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues, which should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 9