CAT/C/66/D/829/2017 Annex Individual opinion (dissenting) of Abdelwahab Hani 1. The complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Currently, he receives psychotherapy on a weekly basis and takes strong psychotropic medication; both of these treatments are necessary in order to maintain his physical integrity. The medical certificates that he submitted to support his case show that he is at a high risk of self-harm. He has been diagnosed with recurrent and severe depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms, as a victim of torture. He currently needs treatment in a secure environment, failing which he would be at significant risk of self-harm. The complainant states that, if he were to return to Benin, he would live in constant fear of being recognized by his torturers. He explains the political implications of his case and notes that the situation in Benin is somewhat turbulent under the new President and that his safety cannot be assured. 2. The State party considers that the allegations of sexual violence were submitted late, in that they were submitted one and a half years after the complainant’s arrival in Switzerland, without taking into account the fact that victims of sexual abuse may need time before they are able to talk about the abuse and that they may suffer from memory problems and give an inconsistent account of the events. 1 3. At the same time, the State party acknowledges that such experiences cannot be recounted unless an atmosphere of security and trust has been created and that this can be very difficult to achieve in the presence of persons linked to the authorities. It also acknowledges that the explanation given by the complainant to the doctor at the Medical Treatment of Violence Unit of Lausanne University Hospital, with whom he had established a relationship of trust, was consistent with the signs of injuries to his private parts. However, the Federal Administrative Court held that the two medical certificates dated 15 July and 28 September 2015 did not establish the origin of these sequelae and therefore did not confirm the complainant’s allegations. The authorities of the State party do not explain why they did not order an adversarial medical examination in order to determine the origin of the sequelae. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, an examination by a qualified medical doctor, including as requested by the complainant to prove the torture that the complainant has suffered, should always be ensured, regardless of the authorities’ assessment of the credibility of the allegation, 2 so that the authorities deciding on a given case are able to complete the assessment of the risk of torture on the basis of the result of the medical and psychological examinations, beyond any reasonable doubt.3 4. The State party also draws attention to numerous contradictions and implausible claims in the complainant’s account of the persecution and ill-treatment that he allegedly suffered in his country. Yet complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture.4 5. The State party provides no explanation in response to the complainant’s allegations that he was interrogated by two women while he was in a serious psychological state, paralysed by fear and trauma, having been repeatedly raped. It is possible that an interrogation conducted by a person of the opposite sex might have led to inaccuracies and 1 2 3 4 GE.19-12653 See Swiss Refugee Council (OSAR), Manuel de la procédure d’asile et de renvoi (Manual on asylum and removal procedures), 2nd ed. (Bern, Haupt Verlag, 2009), chap. XII, point 5.3: “Difficultés spécifiques en matière de vraisemblance” (Particular problems with regard to plausibility). M.B. et al. v. Denmark (CAT/C/59/D/634/2014), para. 9.8. General comment No. 4, para. 41. Ibid., para. 42; Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.3; Kisoki v. Sweden (CAT/C/16/D/41/1996), para. 9.3; Haydin v. Sweden (CAT/C/21/D/101/1997), paras. 6.6–6.7; C.T. and K.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/37/D/279/2005), para. 7.6; E.K.W. v. Finland (CAT/C/54/D/490/2012), para. 9.6; and M.B. et al. v. Denmark, para. 9.6. 9