CAT/C/60/D/653/2015 observed that the torture inflicted could constitute both gross psychological and gross physical abuse. Moreover, the timing of the abuse relative to the asylum seeker’s departure and any changes in regime in the country of origin might be decisive factors in assessing whether residence should be granted. An asylum seeker’s fear of abuse in case of return to his or her country of origin might result in asylum being granted if it was supported by an objectively founded assumption that the asylum seeker would be subjected to abuse upon return. In its assessment, the Refugee Appeals Board included information on whether systematic, gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights occurred in the asylum seeker’s country of origin. 4.11 The State party referred to the Views of the Committee in communication No. 61/1996, X, Y and Z v. Sweden9 and to the Committee’s decision in communication No. 237/2003, M.C.M.V.F. v. Sweden,10 and maintained that the crucial point was the situation in the country of origin at the time of the potential return of the asylum seeker to that country. 4.12 The State party also explained that, once the Refugee Appeals Board had decided a case, the asylum seeker may request it to reopen the asylum proceedings. If the asylum seeker claimed that essential new information had come to light since the Board had made its original decision and that the new information might result in a different decision, the Board would assess whether that new information might justify a reopening of the proceedings and a reconsideration of the case. Under section 53 (10) and (11) of the Aliens Act and rule 48 of the Board’s rules of procedure, the Chair of the panel (always a judge) that made the original decision in the case may determine whether there was any reason to assume that the Board would change its decision or whether the conditions for granting asylum must be deemed to have been evidently satisfied. The Chair may also decide to reopen the case and send it back to the Danish Immigration Service for reconsideration. 4.13 The Chair may further decide whether the panel that had previously decided the case should also make a decision on reopening the case, either through a hearing or written deliberations, and on holding a new oral hearing, with all parties to the case present. The Chair may also decide that the case should be reopened and considered at a hearing by a new panel, in line with rule 48, paragraph 2, of the rules of procedure. 4.14 Cases might be reopened and considered at a new oral hearing by the panel that had previously decided the case if the applicant provided essential new information of significance to the decision of the case and if it is assessed that he or she should be given the opportunity to make a statement in person in that respect. 4.15 Cases might be reopened and considered at an oral hearing before a new panel if a member of the former panel was unable to attend and if replacing that member with another member from the same authority or organization gave rise to due process concerns. If a basis was found for reopening a case, the deadline within which the applicant would have to leave the State party would be suspended pending a rehearing of the case. The Refugee Appeals Board would also assign counsel to represent the complainant. 4.16 In the present case, the State party has observed that the complainants have provided no new information on the circumstances in their country of origin beyond the information that was available when the Refugee Appeals Board made its decision on 19 December 2014. As regards the complainants’ submission that the immigration authorities made a decision on their cases without examining A.M.D. for signs of torture, the State party observed that the Board did not initiate an examination for signs of torture in cases in which it did find an asylum seeker’s statement credible. The decisions made by the Board on 19 December 2014 and 26 May 2015 indicate that most Board members did not accept as fact the complainants’ statements on the circumstances in their country of origin prior to their departure and therefore found that there was no basis for initiating an examination of A.M.D. for signs of torture. 9 10 Adopted on 6 May 1998. See para. 11.2. Adopted on 14 November 2005. See para. 6.4. 5