not mentioned the abuse to which he had been subjected, and he had at no point mentioned
the sexual abuse.2 They submit in that respect that the inconsistences of their statements
were of minor importance. With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the
complainants further observe that it is difficult for victims of torture to explain precisely
what happened in a very stressful situation.3 Furthermore, the complainants submit that the
Board emphasized the complainants’ inconsistent statements about R.R.K.’s phone call to
I.U.K. on which occasion she informed him that he should not come home because the
authorities had been to their home. The complainants observe in this respect that they had
been in a very tense situation and that they should not be blamed for not recalling the exact
sequence of events, also because I.U.K. had been very drunk in that situation.
Moreover, the complainants submit that the Board emphasized their inconsistent
statements about their visas. They observe in this respect that R.R.K. had given a very
credible statement without any inconsistencies on the circumstances surrounding her
application for a Polish visa in 2012 as a surprise for her spouse, something that she had
never informed him about because she feared his reaction. Furthermore, the complainants
insist on the fact that they did not know about the visa application for Greece (see paras. 4.4
and 4.5 below).
Finally, with reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 4 the complainants observe
that, in the assessment of whether a person risks torture in case of a return to his or her
country of origin, all matters must be taken into account, including the existence of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the relevant State.
In this respect, the complainants refer to the background information 5 available on the
situation in Dagestan and argue that such a “pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights” exists without doubt in Dagestan.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
On 13 April 2016, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the
merits of the complaint. As regards the facts on which the present complaint is based, it
refers to the complainants’ statements during the asylum proceedings and recalls that they
have not been members of any political or religious associations or organizations, nor have
they been politically active in any other way.
With reference to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party
submits that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of
admissibility of their complaint under article 3 of the Convention, in so far as it has not
been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that I.U.K. is in danger of
being subjected to torture upon his return to the Russian Federation. The complaint is
therefore inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. Should the Committee find the complaint
admissible, the State party submits that the complainants have not sufficiently established
The complainants do not provide further information on this claim.
Reference is made to Rong v. Australia (CAT/C/49/D/416/2010), para. 7.5.
Reference is made to M.O. v. Denmark (CAT/C/31/D/209/2002), para. 6.2.
Reference is made to Lawrence A. Franklin, “Dagestan: new epicenter of Muslim terrorism in
Russia” (Gatestone Institute International Policy Council, 14 February 2014), which states that
Dagestan is the most violent place in the Russian Federation, and that the administrative bureaucracy
is corrupt. It is also stated in that article that Dagestan is the new epicentre of Muslim terrorism in the
Russian Federation and that anti-State activities occur on a daily basis in the territory. Reference is
also made to Mairbek Vatchagaev, “Formation of Khasavyurt Jammat reflects influx of new funds
and recruits”, Eurasia Daily Monitor, vol. 11, No. 10, 17 January 2014, which states that Khasavyurt
is one of the most active jamaats (Islamist jihadist groups) in Dagestan. Militant attacks or law
enforcement operations in the Khasavyurt area occur almost every week, thus increasing the
authorities’ presence and actions in the area. The complainants also refer to a report “Invisible war:
Russia’s abusive response to the Dagestan insurgency” by Human Rights Watch dated 18 June 2015,
which indicates that the organization has registered abuse in several counterinsurgency operations in
Dagestan. According to the report, there have been abuses related to the detention of suspects by the
security forces. Those targeted are typically young men who are suspected of having links to the
insurgency. In some cases, the suspects are initially forcibly disappeared but then, they appear in a
detention facility, tortured or threatened. It further documents police use of torture and ill-treatment in
extracting confessions and testimonies in Dagestan.