CCPR/C/119/D/2530/2015 4. Although we agree that the State party should, generally speaking, resort more frequently to medical and psychological examinations to verify asylum claims,6 we cannot conclude that the position of the State party — according to which, in the particular circumstances of the case, such an examination was not warranted — is unreasonable. We note in this regard that the authors did not explain how a medical examination could have cured the very serious credibility problems attached to their claims relating to the circumstances under which F was allegedly physically abused, which lay at the very heart of their asylum claim. We also note that the authors did not provide any medical documentation supporting the claims of physical abuse (see footnote 2). 5. In the light of these factors, we do not consider it well established that the proceedings suffered from a procedural defect that should lead us to doubt the outcome of the asylum process, or its fairness. 6 10 See CCPR/C/DNK/CO/6, paras. 33-34.