CAT/C/68/D/863/2018 T-shirts. The complainant did not know whether the party was banned. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to be able to provide more specific information about the party and her husband’s activities for the party, particularly since she had been married for a long time and had helped her husband hand out T-shirts at meetings on several occasions. 4.5 The statements that the complainant made to the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment and to the Committee contradict her statements to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The complainant told the Service that when the soldiers searched her house they could not find her, and that she stayed with her neighbours after the search. She told the Service that two days after the search, she returned to her house to collect items for the children, and was arrested by the soldiers at that point. The complainant provided no explanation for her contradictory statements, which concern the essence of her account. 4.6 The complainant also gave cursory, contradictory and implausible statements concerning her detention and escape. For instance, she was unable to describe the prison where she claims to have been detained for almost four years. Nor could she say why her cellmates, with whom she was imprisoned for years, were detained. She could not state whether the guards at the prison were armed. She provided little information about how her friend had been able to arrange her escape. As the complainant remained in contact with her friend, it is unclear why she did not ask about this. It is implausible that a guard would be willing to take the significant risk of helping the complainant escape, especially since she had been imprisoned for nearly four years. Given the inconsistencies and gaps in her account, it cannot be assumed that the complainant was a victim of rape in the past. The complainant has not alleged any circumstances to support the conclusion that she would run a personal risk of being subjected to such treatment upon return to Côte d’Ivoire. 4.7 The report by the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment does not lend credibility to the complainant’s account. During asylum procedures, the Immigration and Naturalization Service regularly encounters asylum seekers suffering from psychological and/or other medical problems. When deciding upon the complainant’s case, the Immigration and Naturalization Service relied upon Work Instruction 2008/6, which had been prepared to provide the Service with optimal information about how to interact with individuals affected by mental health problems. The Work Instruction had been drafted in consultation with the Dutch Council for Refugees, the Legal Aid Council, Pharos (the national knowledge and advisory centre that specializes in health-care issues relating to refugees, asylum seekers and other newcomers), the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers, and the reporting centre for asylum seekers with psychological problems. 4.8 The Work Instruction stated, as did the applicable policy at the time, that depending on an individual’s mental health condition and bearing in mind the effects of possible posttraumatic stress disorder, it may not always be possible for asylum seekers to provide consistent statements. When the complainant was interviewed and a decision was made on her asylum application, the staff members of the Immigration and Naturalization Service were aware of this fact. They had sufficient tools to help them deal with such situations. 4.9 Before her first and second interviews, on 26 and 28 October 2009, the complainant did not submit any medical documents, nor did she provide any notification indicating that she was unfit to be interviewed. During her first interview, she did not state that she was unfit to be interviewed. Nor did the staff member of the Dutch Council for Refugees who was present during the interview make a statement to this effect. During that interview, the complainant merely stated that she sometimes lost consciousness (as a result of epileptic seizures). She reported no medical or other problems that would preclude her being interviewed. Before the second interview, she was explicitly asked whether there were any medical reasons for which the interview could not take place. She replied in the negative, and indicated that she was able to proceed with the interview and that if any questions were problematic or if she needed a break, she would say so. A break was held during the interview. The complainant stated at the conclusion of the interview that she was satisfied with how it had been conducted. The report on the interview does not mention any occurrence that could have led the staff of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to conclude that the complainant was unable to make consistent and detailed statements during the interview. Moreover, because the complainant did not ask the Immigration and 6