Advance unedited version CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015
December 2012 and in a later interview she said that it was on 28 December 2012), among
other contradictions. The FOM also considered that her allegations were not credible because
she did not mention that she opposed any of the rapes by physical force and did not take any
legal steps to accuse Jusup and his accomplices of the sexual violence and attacks she
suffered. She neither asked her entourage for any help. In addition, she did not hide
somewhere to escape from the attacks and did not go to see a doctor after the first rape. The
FOM also considered that A.K. was not credible because he incurred in contradictions and
gave general statements, including regarding the place where his mother used to work (the
coffee shop), the time his mother was married to her second husband and his encounters with
Jusup: he said first that he saw him once in 2012 and a second time soon after the funeral of
his grandmother. However, when asked later about the matter, he could not remember when
he met Jusup for the first time.
2.4
The complainants appealed the FOM’s decision. On 9 September 2013, the Federal
Administrative Court (FAC)7 dismissed the appeal because it had no prospect of success. 8
The FAC considered that the complainants’ statements were not credible and reaffirmed the
FOM’s arguments. It also indicated that it was very “singular” that Jusup got interested in
the complainant four years after her husband was arrested and that the complainant would
not be at any risk in Chechnya, as the complainant, even if a single mother, had a social
network who could help her at her return, including her brother and uncle. On 28 November
2013, the complainants filed an application for a re-examination of their asylum request
which was received as a new asylum application. In this application, the complainants
indicated that their landlord in Grozny found two summonses from the investigation
department UMVD Russia addressed to Z.K. asking her to attend a hearing before a
magistrate.9 According to the complainants, the neighbours accepted the summons on behalf
of the complainant.10 The landlord also indicated that in another round to the complainant’s
apartment, he found a military who asked him about her whereabouts. On 18 November 2014,
the FOM rejected this application. It considered that it was contrary to logic that the
complainant’s neighbours would accept the summons on her behalf months after she left the
apartment. The complainants appealed this decision to the FAC which, in an interim decision
of 23 January 2015, stated that the appeal was devoid of any prospect of success. 11 The
complainants requested a re-examination of this interim decision as the Red Cross found
Z.K.’s husband in a prison located in Northern Russia. He sent her a message through the
Red Cross. The FAC issued an interim decision on 5 February 2015 in which it stated that
the new evidence did not prove that the complainants would face persecution if returned to
the Russian Federation. The FAC reiterated that it was not logical that the neighbours would
receive the summons and considered that the letter sent by the complainant’s husband was
too general and did not give any grounds to a possible persecution of the complainants if
returned to the Russian Federation. On 11 March 2015, the FAC issued a final decision which
confirmed the arguments of the interim decision of 5 February 2015.
The complaint
3.1
The complainants submit that if they are returned to the Russian Federation, they face
real risk of torture. Therefore, Switzerland would violate article 3 of the Convention, in
particular the non-refoulement obligation. The complainants submit that their claims are
detailed, credible and genuine.
3.2.
The complainant alleges that the FAC gave too much weight to some minor
inconsistencies in the complainants’ statement but failed to take into account the general
situation in Chechnya where there has been a situation of turmoil for decades and where it is
known that authorities and government officials subject to arbitrary treatment, including
torture, anyone who is perceived as a supporter of the Chechen rebel cause. The complainants
7
8
9
10
11
The complainant provided an unofficial translation of the FAC’s decision.
The FAC asked the complainants to advance 800 CHF to cover the procedural costs, as the appeal had
no prospect of success. As the complainants could not pay such amount, the FAC struck out the case
on 4 October 2013. The complainant did not provide a translation of this decision.
The complaint does not contain further details regarding the summons.
The landlord gave the summons to the complainant’s brother, who sent them to her in Switzerland.
The complainant did not provide a translation of this decision.
3