CAT/C/60/D/653/2015 4.17 The State party reiterated that the complainants failed to mention that they had obtained visas and tickets to go to Spain and observed, in that respect, that it also seemed not credible, as stated by the complainants, that they were not aware that it appeared from their visa applications that they had previously been issued with Schengen visas for the period 8-21 August 2010 and that the visa agency had allegedly included that information without the complainants’ knowledge. According to his statement, A.M.D. had had personal contact with the visa agency seven or eight times in May and June 2013. The State party maintained that it was not credible, as stated by the complainants, that they had merely signed blank visa application forms without knowing anything about the contents of those forms. It further observed that the complainants’ incorrect statements on international passports and visas, which they maintained despite having had numerous opportunities to correct them, generally weakened their credibility. Those circumstances could not be explained by the abuse to which A.M.D. was subjected while detained, as he himself claimed. 4.18 With regard to the 27 March 2015 report of the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group on A.M.D.’s examination for signs of torture, the State party maintained that it was taken into consideration by the Refugee Appeals Board in its 26 May 2015 decision not to reopen the asylum proceedings. The Board found that the examination for signs of torture conducted by the Group could not lead to a different assessment of the credibility of the complainants’ statements. It also found that the consistency between A.M.D.’s description of torture, his physical and psychological symptoms and the findings set out in the Group’s report did not mean that the complainant had been subjected to the alleged physical or mental abuse. Accordingly, the Board maintained, based on an overall assessment of the information on file, including the Group’s report, that the complainants had not rendered probable the grounds for asylum on which their applications were based, including that A.M.D. had been detained and subjected to torture and other physical abuse by persons supporting the Chechen authorities shortly before he and M.M.Y. left Chechnya in July 2013. 4.19 The State party referred, in that respect, to the above-mentioned observations on the credibility of the statements made by the complainants during the asylum proceedings, not least those on the circumstances preceding their departure in 2013, shortly after A.M.D. was allegedly detained. The State party observed that both A.M.D. and M.M.Y. had made incorrect statements on their passport and visa applications until they met with counsel, although they had been given several opportunities to correct their statements. 4.20 As regards the complainants’ submission that their home in Chechnya had been burned down, the State party observed that the Refugee Appeals Board already had, at the initial hearing of the appeal, the relevant police statements. The State party found that the alleged arson of the complainants’ home in Chechnya did not constitute proof that the complainants risked being subjected to abuse of the kind covered by the Convention upon return to their country of origin. It observed, in that respect, that no one but the complainants and a witness had assumed that the arson had been organized by the authorities and that the police statements indicated, as a matter of fact, that the authorities had initiated an investigation into the incident. 4.21 Finally, the State party found that the document produced on an alleged criminal case pending against A.M.D. could not lead to a different assessment of the complainants’ credibility. The document, which was dated 26 July 2013 but was only received by the complainants on 7 October 2014 according to the information provided, appeared to have been fabricated for the occasion. In that respect, the Refugee Appeals Board noted the delay and that the background material indicated the following: According to a Western embassy it is possible to buy any kind of documents in Russia. … When asked about the prevalence of false documents ordering people to report for questioning at the police station or in court in connection with a case of support to the insurgency, a human rights activist in Grozny (A) explained that such false documents are very common and easy to come by. They are common because 6