CCPR/C/117/D/2443/2014 was in contact with her family, including her brother and her daughters. Her family has informed her that the authorities are still asking for her and her son’s whereabouts. 4.7 With respect to the author’s detention in November 2012, the State party agrees with the assessment made by the Refugee Appeals Board that the information cannot be accepted because the events described, both seen in isolation, appear unlikely, particularly in view of the information given by the author on her personal circumstances, including events after her son’s departure in 2010 and other background information. The State party observes that, according to the information she submitted, the author has not had any connection with the Chechen rebels. She therefore appears to be a low-profile individual. It appears unconvincing that the author would have become a person of interest to the authorities merely for having sold bread outside her home to passers-by whose identity she ignored. It also appears unlikely that she was able to leave the intensive care unit dressed in a staff uniform with help from an acquaintance without being noticed by anybody, considering that she was 58 years old at that time and had, according to her own statement, been subjected to torture, including blows and electric shocks, while detained by the police for a week, the consequence being that she lost consciousness and had, according to the hospital staff, suffered a heart attack. Finally, it seems unlikely that the authorities would have used as many resources as stated by the author to search for her after her escape and that she could stay two months in Ingushetia without being contacted by them. 4.8 With respect to the documents produced, the State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board considered the alleged summonses, the letter from the author’s neighbour, the alleged notice of the author as a wanted person and the letter from the Chechen organization Objective and found that it could not attach any evidential importance to the documents because, based on their contents and the time of their appearance, they appeared fabricated for the occasion. The Board found that the author had failed to give a reasonable explanation of why she had not produced documentation in support of her request for asylum earlier,8 considering that she had had regular contact with her family in her country of origin after her entry in Denmark in March 2013. The alleged summonses and wanted person notice too were undated and, based on their language and contents, appeared not to be genuine. Therefore, the State party cannot accord said documents any evidentiary value. 4.9 With respect to the submissions made by the author’s counsel that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to request an examination for signs of torture despite the author’s consent, the State party observes that when the Refugee Appeals Board considers an asylum seeker to fall under section 7 of the Aliens Act, the Board may decide to adjourn proceedings pending the examination of the asylum seeker for signs of torture even when it finds the person’s statements, including those relating to torture, to be subject to some uncertainty. The Board normally does not order such an examination when the asylum seeker has appeared not credible throughout the proceedings and the Board therefore has to reject the asylum seeker’s statement about torture in its entirety. Because the Board could not accept as fact the information provided by the author concerning her grounds for seeking asylum, it has not requested an examination of the author for signs of torture. 4.10 The Board made a thorough assessment of the author’s credibility and found that she had failed to establish a probable risk of persecution or abuse in the Russian Federation, which would justify asylum. The author’s communication to the Committee merely showed 8 6 The submission made by the author’s counsel that the Danish Immigration Service requested an assessment of the authenticity of those summonses through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is incorrect. The author’s counsel only produced those documents after the Refugee Appeals Board refused asylum on 6 March 2014, so the documents obviously were not considered when the application for asylum was examined by the Service.