CAT/C/63/D/732/2016
attempted to gain possession of the land, “trouble started and began to escalate”. In August
2013, the complainants were part of a group celebrating a wedding. Shortly after driving
around the village, Z.A. was accused of driving dangerously and being drunk, and a formal
complaint was submitted to the police. Z.A. was told that if he paid 300,000 roubles
(approximately $5,000) the charges would be dropped, but that if he did not pay he would
face one year and six months of imprisonment. When Z.A. refused to pay he was accused
of collaborating with the rebels.
2.2
An attempt at mediation with the village chief was carried out in August 2013, but it
ended in a shoot-out. Z.A. was slightly wounded while his cousin 1 was killed and another
person was seriously injured. The village chief called for police reinforcements and Z.A.
fled to Dagestan. He stayed in Dagestan for three months. During this period, his family in
Chechnya was harassed and threatened in order to convince him to return. On an
unspecified date, he travelled to Krasnodar, Russian Federation. While there, he was
informed by friends that there was an outstanding arrest warrant against him for driving
under the influence, for consorting with rebels and for murder. During Z.A.’s absence, his
father and brother were “interrogated and brutalized” and his wife was told that she would
lose custody of the children if she did not cooperate. Z.A. did not dare to contact the
authorities as he was convinced that they were cooperating with the village chief. He was
afraid that he would risk being killed in the blood feud. Three months later, the
complainants travelled to Sweden, where they applied for asylum on 30 December 2013.
2.3
The complainants’ application for asylum was rejected by the Migration Agency on
7 November 2014. They appealed that decision to the Migration Court; however, the appeal
was rejected by the Court on 23 April 2015. The complainants’ subsequent application for
leave to appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal was rejected on 16 July 2015.
The complaint
3.1
The complainants claim that they would be at substantial risk of being subjected to
torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to the
Russian Federation. They claim that they are facing a clear threat because of their family’s
involvement in a blood feud in Chechnya and that the authorities would be unable or
unwilling to protect them from such threats.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 12 September 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the
admissibility and the merits of the complaint. The State party considers that the
communication should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention and
rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure for failure to substantiate the claims for
purposes of admissibility. In the alternative, should the Committee find the communication
to be admissible, the State party submits that the complaint is without merit.
4.2
The State party notes that as grounds for asylum in their application before the
Migration Agency, the complainants claimed that Z.A. was at risk of being killed because
of the conflict with the village chief and because the family was at risk as they had been
accused of collaboration with rebels in Chechnya. In its decision of 7 November 2014, the
Migration Agency found the complainants’ statements pertaining to the conflict with the
village chief to be credible. However, it found that, as the threat was attributable to nonState actors, it did not amount to persecution. It found that blood feuds occur in Chechnya
but that an internal flight alternative was available to the complainants within the Russian
Federation, and that Russian authorities were willing and able to offer protection to victims
of crime. The Migration Agency found the complainants’ claim that they risked persecution
both from Chechen and Russian authorities to be unsubstantiated, as the claim that they had
been accused of collaborating with rebels had not been plausibly demonstrated.
1
2
It is noted in the decision of the Migration Agency of 7 November 2014 that in their statements
during the asylum proceedings, the complainants stated that it was the village chief’s cousin that was
killed in the shooting, not Z.A.’s cousin.