CAT/C/56/D/565/2013 had been broken as a result of the ill-treatment she suffered before leaving the Russian Federation. 2.6 On 30 August 2011, the complainants filed an application for asylum in Switzerland. On 30 March 2013, the application was rejected at first instance by the Federal Office for Migration, which considered that the complainants ’ account was not credible. The complainants lodged an appeal against the decision before the Federal Administrative Court. This appeal too was dismissed by the Court, on 14 October 2013. Both the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court held that their “story was invented and greatly exaggerated, difficult to understand and made no sense”. Thereafter the Federal Office for Migration set 13 November 2013 as the date by which the complainants must leave the country. Since that date, the complainants have no longer been permitted to remain in Switzerland and may be deported to the Russian Federation at any time. 2.7 The complainants claim to have exhausted all available domestic remedies. The complaint 3.1 The complainants allege that they have been persecuted and subjected to illtreatment by the Russian authorities as a result of the publication, in September and December 2009 and in January 2010, of an article in which they criticize the attitude of Soviet authorities during the aeroplane hijacking that took place in 1985. The aut hors fear that they would be subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment if they were returned to their country of origin. 3.2 The complainants claim a violation of article 3 of the Convention owing to the risk of persecution by the authorities of the Russian Federation and that, in consequence, they would have to fear seriously for their lives and physical integrity if deported. In the complaint, they claim that the political legacy of the Soviet era lives on in the Russian Federation today and that the KGB is continuing its activities. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 12 May 2014, the State party submitted its observations, in which it noted that the authors were doing no more than reiterating to the Committee the reasons add uced in support of their asylum application and referring to the evidence produced in support thereof, without providing any new evidence likely to call into question the decisions of the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. T he State party recalls that the authors applied for asylum in Switzerland on 30 August 2011. Their first hearing took place on 6 September 2011. S.A.P. was heard again by the Federal Office for Migration on 13 November and 10 December 2012; V.P. on 9 January 2013. In its decision of 28 March 2013, the Federal Office for Migration dismissed the asylum applications on the grounds that the authors’ allegations lacked credibility. In its judgement of 14 October 2013, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed t he appeal filed by the authors against that decision. 4.2 The State party recalls that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Referring to the criteria established by the Committee in its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, which require the complainant to prove that he or she runs a personal, present and substantial risk of torture if deported to his or her country of origin, the State party recalls that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion and, furthermore, that facts must be adduced which indicate that the risk is serious. According to the State party, the authors have not demonstrated, either before the national courts or 4/10 GE.16-01900