CAT/C/55/D/571/2013 credibility.17 The complainant adds that discrepancies in statements are common especially, although not exclusively, when the person is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. 5.4 The complainant reiterates that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during the kidnappings in Afghanistan, the fact of which does not seem to be disputed by the State party, unlike the identity of the agents of the persecution. The fact that he was subjected to such treatment repeatedly during the kidnappings should be reflected in the credibility assessment, as such treatment is likely to affect cognitive functions of the victims, including memory malfunction and inability to concentrate. The complainant refers to the Committee’s case law, in which it states that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture or those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.18 Even if the inconsistencies relate to a material fact, the evidence may still be accepted as credible.19 The complainant argues that the alleged lack of credibility and inconsistencies in his and his spouse’s statements, for example, the details regarding his release after the second kidnapping or when and how his spouse was informed of the kidnappings, made during the asylum process over a period of more than 19 months, does not necessarily indicate that they lack credibility. Those discrepancies might be normal or explainable traits in the asylum seeker’s account of the reasons why he fled Afghanistan and ill-treatment to which he was subjected there. The errors in the interpretation from Dari to Danish should also be considered as normal and distorting factors in the communication during the asylum proceedings between the asylum seekers and State officials. 5.5 As an explanation of the pivotal point of the communication, that is, whether the kidnappers were the Taliban or a criminal gang without affiliation to the Taliban, the complainant states that when he said “criminals” during the registration with the Danish police, he meant the Taliban. The same explanation was given to the Appeals Board. The complainant also stated that he became aware that the kidnappers were from the Taliban, partly due to how they were dressed and how they talked, and partly because, when he was first kidnapped, they told him directly that they were from the Taliban. The complainant also contests the assertions in the report of the Danish Immigration Service of 29 May 2012 that the Taliban mainly recruit ethnic Pashtuns, pointing out that the report is limited in scope and based on interviews carried out in Kabul, whereas Kandahar is a traditional Taliban stronghold as that is the original area of the Taliban movement. He submits in addition that, at the time of his kidnapping, Kandahar province was largely inaccessible for the United Nations and reports of abduction and assassination of Afghan citizens also increased during that period. Therefore, his statements that he was kidnapped by the Taliban in Kandahar are not inconsistent with background information on the security situation in Kandahar and of the known power bases of the Taliban at that time. The complainant also contests the State party’s allegations that it was possible to hide from the Taliban in Kabul and gives examples of security incidents to the contrary. 5.6 The complainant submits that in the light of international research on credibility assessments and relevant background information from Afghanistan, his and his spouse’s statements should be regarded as credible as they describe the personal and real risk that he could be subjected to ill-treatment and torture by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan, given that he had already been kidnapped twice by the Taliban and subjected to various acts of torture. 17 18 19 12 Ibid., pp. 68 and 152. See communications No. 21/1995, Alan v. Switzerland, views adopted on 8 May 1996; No. 41/1996, Kisoki v. Sweden, views adopted on 8 May 1996; and No. 279/2005, C.T. & K.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 17 November 2006. See communication No. 101/1997, Haydin v. Sweden, views adopted on 20 November 1998.