CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 have given substantial support for a longer period of time.14 In this regard, the State party notes that the complainants’ sons/brothers left the Russian Federation in 2002 and 2006, respectively. The complainants have not alleged that the sons/brothers, since their departure, have been in contact with the rebels or that they have supported them in any way. It has also not been shown that the sons/brothers gave the rebels any more substantial support other than sporadically bringing them food and medicine, or that they supported any high-profile rebels. 4.18 Furthermore, the State party shares the migration authorities’ view that the complainants’ descriptions of the masked men who visited their apartment and threatened them are vague and of a general nature. It is only an assumption on the complainants’ part that the masked men had a connection to the authorities and no evidence had been brought forward to support this view. As the Swedish migration authorities noted in their decisions and judgments, the complainants remained in their home despite the alleged threats, which indicates that they did not find their need of protection to be particularly urgent. The third complainant did move to her uncle’s home after the last visit by the masked men, but the State party notes that the complainants did not consider the threat against her in the spring of 2010 to be so serious that she could not complete her studies at the municipal upper secondary school, which is supported by the submitted certificate of completed studies and by the complainants’ own account. Moreover, the conduct of the third complainant and her family indicates that they considered that moving the third complainant to another town would be sufficient to eliminate the threats against her. 4.19 In addition, the State party notes that according to the available country-of-origin information it is common for individuals who are related to suspected rebels to be dismissed from their place of work. The first complainant has stated that he worked as a geophysicist for a company run by the Chechen authorities. According to his own account, he kept his employment until his departure from the country; he has also stated that he did not encounter any problems at work. The State party shares the view of the Swedish migration authorities that these circumstances indicate that the complainants were not of any great interest to the Chechen authorities. 4.20 Moreover, the complainants submitted their internal passports in order to support their identities. According to the stamps in the passports and the complainants’ own account, the passports were issued in 2009 and 2010 by the competent authorities in Grozny. The complainants were thus able to obtain these passports from the Chechen authorities in 2009 and 2010, despite the fact that the alleged threats towards them began in 2008. In this regard, the State party shares the Swedish migration authorities’ view that this circumstance speaks strongly against the complainants’ claims that they felt an urgent threat from the Chechen authorities and that they were threatened by the authorities. 4.21 Further, the complainants have alleged that they have been summoned for questioning in the Russian Federation and have submitted documents in support of this claim. As the Swedish migration authorities have noted, the summonses are of a simple nature and the declared name of the second complainant’s father is different from the name specified in her internal passport. The complainants have not explained who sent those documents to Sweden or how that person came into possession of them. The State party therefore shares the assessment of the Swedish migration authorities that those documents cannot be accorded any significant evidentiary value. 4.22 Furthermore, after the decision to expel the complainants became final and nonappealable the complainants claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of the 14 8 Ibid.