CAT/C/63/D/732/2016
4.3
The State party further notes that, in its decision of 23 April 2015, the Migration
Court found that there were considerable shortcomings in the credibility of the
complainants’ asylum account. The Court noted that Z.A. had changed his account
concerning the level of power that the chief of his home village allegedly held. In the
procedure before the Migration Agency, he had stated that the chief did not have any
substantial power or influence over the authorities and that his power was centred on his
home village. However, in the procedure before the Court, he stated that the chief was
related to an influential person in Chechnya, that he was the chief of several villages and
that he had a large network of contacts. The Court found this to be an escalation of his
claims for protection and also noted that the complainants had not submitted any written
documentation concerning the alleged position or status of the village chief. Concerning the
risk of being subjected to a blood feud, the Court found it unlikely that Z.A. would have
been accused of killing anyone in the shooting in August 2013 as he had stated that he was
not armed during the incident. It also noted that he had submitted contradictory information
about the incident, stating in the procedure before the Migration Agency that the bodyguard
of the village chief had died in the shooting, while stating in the oral hearing before the
Court that the bodyguard was still alive. The Court further found the complainants’ claim of
having been accused of collaboration with rebels to be vague and lacking in details. It noted
that, in the hearing before the Court, Z.A. had stated that the accusations were linked to a
childhood friend, whom he had not seen for several years. The Court found that, as Z.A.
had been employed as a police officer until he left Chechnya, it seemed unlikely that the
authorities would suspect him of sympathizing with rebels on such vague grounds. The
Court concluded that the complainants had not demonstrated that they were at risk of being
subjected to persecution if returned to their country of origin.
4.4
The State party notes that it does not wish to underestimate the legitimate concerns
that can be expressed regarding the human rights situation in the Russian Federation,
including in the North Caucasus. It argues, however, that according to country information,
the violence in the North Caucasus has substantially decreased in recent years 2 and that it
cannot be concluded that the current human rights situation in the region in itself would be
sufficient to conclude that the forced removal of the complainants would be in violation of
the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention.
4.5
The State party notes that the male complainant has claimed that he would be at risk
of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention due to a conflict with the chief
of his home village that has developed into a blood feud. It notes that he has further claimed
that he is wanted for murder, collaboration with rebels and driving under the influence in
Chechnya. The State party argues that the Migration Agency and the Migration Court have
conducted thorough examinations of the complainants’ claims. It notes that the Migration
Agency held interviews with the complainants during which they were represented by
counsel and assisted by an interpreter. The minutes of the interviews were communicated to
the complainants, who through their counsel submitted further comments in writing. The
State party argues that the complainants have therefore had the opportunity to explain the
relevant facts and circumstances in support of their claims. It further notes that an oral
hearing was held before the Migration Court on 26 March 2015, during which the
complainants were represented by counsel, and it argues that the Migration Agency and the
Migration Court therefore had sufficient information to assess the complainants’ need for
protection in the State party.
4.6
The State party submits that the there is no information to indicate that the decisions
of the Migration Agency and the Migration Court were inadequate, arbitrary or amounted
to a denial of justice. Accordingly, considerable weight should be given to the findings of
the domestic authorities.
2
The State party refers to the International Crisis Group, “The North Caucasus insurgency and Syria:
an exported jihad?” (Brussels, 16 March 2016); Amnesty International Report 2015/2016: The State
of the World’s Human Rights (London, Amnesty International, 2016); Human Rights Watch, World
Report 2016 (New York, 2016); Freedom House, “Freedom in the world 2016” (New York, 2016);
and the Swedish Migration Agency, “Temarapport: Ryssland — folkbokföring, medborgarskap och
indentitetshandlingar” (15 January 2016).
3