CAT/C/68/D/863/2018 Naturalization Service to order a medical examination, there was no reason to initiate such a process during the first procedure. Furthermore, the decision to grant the complainant’s request for protection was based on the automatic protection offered at that time to nationals of Côte d’Ivoire. The complainant was granted a residence permit on that basis. 4.10 It was only in December 2013, after the complainant had been informed of the intention to revoke her residence permit, that she reported that she had been unfit to be interviewed. She submitted a copy of her medical records indicating that she suffered from epileptic fits and stress-related ailments. The records also indicated that she had told the medical service of the asylum seekers’ centre that she had been traumatized. 4.11 On 27 January 2014, the complainant was interviewed for a third time, this time in connection with the intention to revoke her residence permit. During the interview, she was very emotional and said she had a headache and felt dizzy. She was also short of breath and clutched her head. In consultation with the complainant and her authorized representative, the interview continued. On 11 September 2014, the complainant submitted the report by the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment stating that she suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder and depression. Although the report could explain why the complainant had been unable to give consistent statements about certain details of her account during her second interview in October 2009, it does not explain why she made odd, vague, cursory and contradictory statements concerning the essence of her account. The State party refers to the Committee’s findings in M.O. v. Denmark, 1 in which the Committee saw no reason, in the light of corroborating medical evidence, to assume that the complainant’s statements were true, or to find that Denmark had erroneously failed to further investigate. There was no reason to conduct a further medical examination or other investigation, either when the complainant’s asylum application was assessed (since there was no question of returning her to her country of origin at that time), or when her residence permit was revoked (since political conditions in her country of origin had drastically improved by that time). 4.12 The scar on the complainant’s shoulder is described by the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment as being consistent with a stab wound. According to section 187 of the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol), this description means that many other causes are possible. The lesion on her lower left arm, allegedly caused by hard beatings by the prison guards, could also be a birthmark, or could have been caused by grazes or deep bruises. The report also describes varicose veins, which may have several non-traumatic causes. The small, discoloured, atrophied area on the right back of the lower right leg, described by the complainant as an open wound resulting from mistreatment during her detention, is consistent with a healed cut or a tear that has healed secondarily without stitches. Causes other than mistreatment cannot be ruled out. The vaginal prolapse described in the report happened recently, and it is therefore unlikely that there is a clear causal relationship with the sexual violence the complainant claims to have endured. Given that her scars could have had several other causes, and that it was concluded that the lesion on her left arm and the varicose veins likely had other causes, it cannot be concluded that these marks resulted from mistreatment during her detention. The epileptic seizures could also have had other causes. The scars and symptoms therefore do not constitute sufficient evidence to support the complainant’s claims that she was subjected to torture. Moreover, the Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment based its conclusions on the complainant’s statements, presuming them to be true. Aliens provide false statements to the Institute in order to improve their position. The State party did not have a duty to conduct a medical examination because: (a) further investigation into the complainant’s scars would be of no use, as they would lead to the conclusion that they could have resulted from causes other than those alleged by the complainant; (b) the complainant did not ask for a medical examination to be conducted at an early stage in the proceedings; and (c) the situation in Côte d’Ivoire has now changed, such that the complainant should not fear experiencing ill-treatment if returned there. 1 CAT/C/31/D/209/2002. 7