CCPR/C/117/D/2443/2014 which complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture. She also stresses that she was not represented by a lawyer before the Danish Immigration Service. 5.8 The author states that the State party’s authorities were using outdated information and that, according to the new report of the Government of Denmark on Chechnya, the situation in the country has worsened, persecution of suspected rebels of all levels, not only of the high-profile rebels, is now ordered and that all members of the rebel’s family, not only the male relatives, can be targeted by the authorities.10 The author also claims that the Refugee Appeals Board did not investigate her allegations of torture and was not suited to determine whether she was tortured. It should have ordered a medical examination. She also submits that the decision of the Board does not even address her allegations of torture. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In its observations dated 26 June 2015, the State party recalls its observations of 19 January 2015 and maintains that the author’s submission lacked credibility. With respect to the most recent background information on Chechnya, including a report published in January 2015, the State party considers that it does not give a picture of the situation in Chechnya that differs significantly from that which the Board had already when it made its decision on 6 March 2014. It finds that the reference to the most recent background material does not lead to a revised assessment of the case. 6.2 Finally, the State party observes that, even in cases in which the Danish Immigration Service asks an asylum seeker to consent to an examination for signs of torture because he or she claims to be a victim of torture, the asylum seeker cannot expect to be summoned for such examination. As indicated in the State party’s observations of 19 January 2015, the Service and the Refugee Appeals Board “will not initiate an examination of an asylum seeker for signs of torture if the asylum seeker’s statement on his or her grounds for asylum cannot be considered a fact”. Author’s additional observations 7.1 In her observations dated 10 August 2015, the author disagrees that the January 2015 report does not give a picture of the situation in Chechnya that differs significantly from that formed by the Board in 2014. On the contrary, that report contains new and important information on the persecution of family members of insurgents like the author’s son.11 7.2 As to the State party’s explanation that the Danish Immigration Service does not initiate the examination of an asylum seeker for signs of torture if the asylum seeker’s statement on his or her grounds for asylum cannot be considered a fact, the author argues 10 11 8 The report Security and Human Rights in Chechnya and the Situation of Chechens in the Russian Federation: Residence Registration, Racism and False Accusations on the Danish Immigration Service’s fact-finding mission to Moscow, Grozny and Volgograd (23 April-13 May 2014) and Paris (3 June 2014) was attached to the author’s comments. On page 135 of the report Security and Human Rights in Chechnya (see footnote 11), it is written that “close relatives are fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters” and that “it would be the exemption if the Chechen authorities would pay that kind of attention to more distant relatives of suspected active insurgents as well as relatives of suspected supports”. It is also written that ”there has been a breakdown of traditional values in the Chechen society and for examples women can no longer be considered safe from physical violence if they are detained or arrested. However, women are not exposed to beatings and other forms of physical violence if in police custody as often as male detainees”.