CAT/C/37/D/286/2006 Page 8 does not run counter to generally known facts. It is a fact that he and others were on Israeli television and that a fatwa can and probably will be used against him. 5.4 On the State party’s contention of lack of evidence, counsel refers to UNHCR´s handbook9, according to which it is hardly possible for a refugee to “prove” every part of his case and, indeed, if this were a requirement the majority of refugees would not be recognized. The complainant immediately informed the Swedish authorities of the 1997 events and the consequences they may have on him. Counsel refers to Professor H.’s correspondence, where he stated that on the basis of the facts relating to the complainant, he could not provide a confident assessment of the risks that he may face if forcibly returned to Iraq. However, he indicated that due to the fatwa and the complainant’s time in Israel, he could be in danger if returned. 5.5 Counsel criticises the State party’s reference to the taped telephone conversation, which was quoted out of its context. The complainant’s link to Sweden is not weak. His mother, brother and sister live here, while he has no relatives left in Iraq. 5.6 Counsel argues that the complainant has committed a crime and has been sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. He has served his time and according to a Swedish concept of justice, lack of evidence for some of his statements. As explained above (paragraph 196), it is hardly possible for a refugee to “prove” every part of his case and, indeed, if this were a requirement the majority of refugees would not be recognized. It is therefore frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. 204. The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts. (3) Summary 205. The process of ascertaining and evaluating the facts can therefore be summarized as follows: (a) The applicant should: (i) Tell the truth and assist the examiner to the full in establishing the facts of his case. (ii) Make an effort to support his statements by any available evidence and give a satisfactory explanation for any lack of evidence. If necessary he must make an effort to procure additional evidence. (iii) Supply all pertinent information concerning himself and his past experience in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. He should be asked to give a coherent explanation of all the reasons invoked in support of his application for refugee status and he should answer any questions put to him. (b) The examiner should: (i) Ensure that the applicant presents his case as fully as possible and with all available evidence. (ii) Assess the applicant's credibility and evaluate the evidence (if necessary giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt), in order to establish the objective and the subjective elements of the case. (iii) Relate these elements to the relevant criteria of the 1951 Convention, in order to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the applicant's refugee status. 9 See above.