CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015 Advance unedited version would complain at the police about it. However, he replied that was a commander of a battalion and was thus the boss himself. When she replied that he is not a commander of her, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone what he was doing to her. The complainant further explained that the military men were Kadyrov’s men, meaning closer to the government than any other official, they are above the law and they treat the Chechens as if they are worth less than nothing and women especially so. She could not see the point of going to see a doctor because she would not have known what to tell him due to the shame and stigma attached to rape in Chechnya. She was in distress because she had to rent an apartment for her and her son and it was not easy to find a cheap one. Because Yusup was the deputy commander of a battalion, he was well-connected and could have easily found her elsewhere in the Russian Federation. The State party argument in this respect is patently unreasonable and displays no awareness of the reality of rape victims in Chechnya. 5.10 As to the several years delay between the arrest of the first complainant’s husband and her rape, she explained that Yusup was not informed that her husband had been taken to a prison in Northern Russia in the meantime. Yusup thought that her husband was still free and inquired about his whereabouts as the military executing the arrest then transfer the detainee to another department. For this reason they are not informed about the further course of the proceedings. It is entirely plausible that the wife of a formerly arrested Chechen rebel would still be of interest to the Chechen military, even after the husband was arrested. 5.11 The first complainant’s evidence has been genuine, materially consistent and detailed. She has never sought to embellish her account or to exaggerate her evidence and has displayed typical symptoms of an inability to speak about the traumatic events of the rape. Her son has also given a credible account of his experience witnessing the trauma of his mother. He stated that he did not know what Yusup used to do with his mother, when he came and took her away, but that she would cry because of him and that this means to him that he must have tortured her in some way. The second complainant had struggled to express himself in Russian (rather than Chechen) and the style of questioning was challenging for a 16 years old boy suffering from black outs. In addition, the first complainant did not think it is appropriate that her 14 years old son at the time of the rapes would be questioned about the rape, because she had not wanted to tell her son about this. The second complainant could not remember the name of the café in which his mother had worked; however, he was able to correctly state that the café was by a bus terminal station. The correct name of the café is clearly not a material aspect of the complainants’ claim. It is pertinent that the second complainant had clearly struggled to express himself and to follow the questions. The first complainant’s reactions and sometimes inconsistent answers in small respects do not diminish her credibility but rather constitute a credible and typical behaviour of a rape victim. 5.12 To the extent to which the State party seeks to question that the first complainant is actually religiously married to her husband, it is submitted that the relationship between the two is proved by the Red Cross message from the husband to the first complainant. As regards the Chechen authorities’ awareness of this relationship, they were clearly aware of it and the first complainant was questioned about her husband by Yusup. Both her and her son would form part of the risk category of family members of Chechen rebels.24 Returnees are generally at a heightened risk of interrogation and torture by security services, and former victims of the security services/military and Chechen rebels’ family members are at even higher risk. To the extent that the State party seeks to question the authenticity of the Swiss Red Cross search result and the response received by the first complainant from her husband, it is submitted that it is untenable to question this. The husband is imprisoned in a remote prison in Northern Russia, to which not even Red Cross employees can obtain access in person. It is impossible to understand on what basis the State party questions that the message conveyed by the husband to the first complainant should not be genuine or not constitute solid evidence of their relationship. The fact that the husband is detained in that isolated prison rather than a prison in Chechnya is a clear indication that he has been convicted of a serious crime such as terrorism. Finally, regarding the summons and the alleged inconsistencies, the complainants refer to the explanations in their initial submission. 24 10 The complainant refers to the ECtHR jurisprudence, e.g. I v Sweden, app. No. 61204/09, judgment of 5 September 2013.