CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 that were made by organs of the State party concerned. Moreover, the Committee has held that it is for the courts of the States parties to the Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.12 4.13 The State party contends, in the light of the above, and given that the Migration Board and the migration courts are specialized bodies with particular expertise in the field of asylum law and practice, that there is no reason to conclude that the national rulings were inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was arbitrary in any way or amounted to a denial of justice in the present case. The State party submits that great weight must be attached to the opinions of the Swedish migration authorities, as expressed in their rulings ordering the expulsion of the complainants to the Russian Federation. 4.14 In addition, the State party observes that the complainants have submitted before the Committee that expelling them to the Russian Federation would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention as upon return there they risk being subjected to torture as stipulated in article 1 in the Convention owing to the activities carried out by the complainants’ sons/brothers prior to leaving for Sweden. The complainants have submitted that their sons/brothers were suspected of having participated in rebel activities in the Chechnya region because they had assisted the rebels with food and medicine. 4.15 In this connection, the State party, like its migration authorities, finds a number of aspects that give reason to question the veracity of the complainants’ claims. To begin with, the State party finds it pertinent to point to the fact that the complainants’ sons/brothers were granted asylum in Sweden on the grounds that at the time of their application there was an internal armed conflict in Chechnya, and not on grounds of an individual need for protection. As the complainants have not even alleged that their sons/brothers were active in the rebel movement, other than by occasionally providing food and medicine for rebels before they left Chechnya, there are reasons to question the alleged interest by the Chechen authorities in the remaining family and its continued harassment of them so many years later. 4.16 The State party notes that according to available country-of-origin information, the nature of the conflict in Chechnya has changed in recent years, from being a conflict driven by separatism, during 1999–2003 and 2005, towards a conflict based rather on radical Islamism. As a consequence of this change the Chechen authorities are not as interested in earlier rebels, especially not in those who have not been active during the past few years.13 According to the aforementioned country information, the Chechen authorities may exert pressure upon family members of suspected rebels; however, the purpose of that pressure is to force the suspect to cease his or her rebel activity. In this regard, the State party therefore shares the migration authorities’ view that it is not plausible that the Chechen authorities would exert pressure on the complainants years later in order to force them to convince their sons/brothers to return to the Russian Federation. 4.17 Furthermore, the State party finds it important to refer to available country-of-origin information according to which a substantial part of the population in Chechnya has supported rebels at some point and the fact that the authorities are currently not interested in people who have done so only sporadically. Moreover, the Chechen authorities focus on people who are suspected of having supported or collaborated with high-profile rebels and 12 13 See, for example, communication No. 219/2002, G.K. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 7 May 2003, para. 6.12. See the Swedish Migration Board’s country profile of the Russian Federation dated 25 February 2011, pp. 23–24. 7