CAT/C/51/D/429/2010 have been offered a form to sign authorizing a medical examination, which she maintains she was ready to do. Rather than doing that, the authorities chose to base their decision on a “credibility test” based on the written material and the interview. 5.3 The complainant also argues that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to order a medical examination based on the exact same arguments as the Immigration Service. She submits, however, that the authorities, in assessing the credibility of asylum seekers, rely on the forms the latter fill out when applying and on their statements during the interview with the Immigration Service. She maintains that in her case she filled out the respective form in her native language and that it was subsequently translated, but during the Board hearing at least one mistake in the translation was detected and there could have been more. She also reiterates that torture victims often have difficulties recounting their experiences. She maintains that the Immigration Service and the Refugee Board were obliged to conduct a medical examination to verify her account of having been tortured. She further submits that her statements were consistent during the entire process and that the fact that no medical examination of her scars and health condition was conducted deprived her of the opportunity to prove that she had suffered from torture. 5.4 The complainant further makes reference to a case of the European Court of Human Rights, in which an applicant, who had scars on his body, was found to be in danger of torture upon return, since the Court considered it likely that the airport authorities would detain him, strip search him, discover the scars and conclude that he was a Tamil Tiger.8 She further submits that even though in her appeal to the Refugee Appeals Board she explicitly described the incident when she was detained and her teeth were knocked out of her mouth, the decision of the Board does not mention it. 5.5 The complainant reiterates that if she is forcibly returned to Sri Lanka, the Danish authorities would be in violation of article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention, since she would be at risk of torture and in violation of article 3, paragraph 2 of the Convention, since the authorities failed to investigate whether she had indeed been subjected to torture. 5.6 The complainant submits that she has established a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility under article 22 of the Convention. She further submits that the decision to deport her is a violation of article 3 of the Convention, firstly because the general information regarding human rights in Sri Lanka, the UNHCR guidelines and the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence clearly prove that no forced deportation of Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka should take place due to the risk of persecution or torture; and secondly, because in a case-by-case assessment of the complainant`s claim, in order to establish if substantial grounds to fear torture existed, the authorities should have allowed for an examination of the claimant. State party’s further observations 6.1 On 30 May 2011, the State party submitted with regard to the relevance of the UNHCR eligibility guidelines, that the latter are of a general nature and do not contain any specific assessment of the personal circumstances of the individual asylum seeker, whereas the Refugee Appeals Board decides on individual cases. The Board applies the Convention and other international human rights treaties based on the personal circumstances of the applicant, together with all background information available on the conditions in the 8 The complainant refers to the European Court of Human Rights case N.A. v. U.K., application No. 25904/07, judgment of 17 July 2008. The author also refers to other Court cases where Tamils were found to be in danger of torture: T.N. v. Denmark, appl. No. 20594/08; T.N. and S.N. v. Denmark, appl. No. 36517/08; S.S. and others v. Denmark, appl. No. 54703/08; P.K. v. Denmark, appl. No. 54705/08; and N.S. v. Denmark, appl. No. 58359/08. 7