CAT/C/62/D/685/2015 fair trial should be declared inadmissible as incompatible with the Convention. They consider that this part of the complaint should be declared admissible, as the male complainant is at risk of being tortured in detention. They disagree with the State party’s assertion that their asylum applications were processed with due care. They note that their initial application was processed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in eight days and that the Committee in its 2013 concluding observations on the State party expressed concern that the pressure to decide claims speedily put constraints on procedural safeguards and a fair review of applications by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.5 5.2 As to the State party’s argument that the complainants have not adduced any personal facts or circumstances which would indicate that the male complainant would face a risk of torture by the Armenian authorities if returned, the complainants argue that he would be at risk of being tortured by the police in order for him to confess to the drugs offence, about which he has not made any prior confession to the police. The complainants refer to the 2016 Human Rights Watch report on Armenia, according to which human rights groups have reported that torture and ill-treatment in custody remain serious problems in pretrial and post-conviction facilities, especially in order to coerce confessions. 6 The complainants also refer to the Committee’s 2012 concluding observations on Armenia, in which the Committee expressed concern over numerous and consistent allegations of routine use of torture and ill-treatment of suspects in police custody, especially to extract confessions to be used in criminal proceedings. 7 5.3 The complainants reiterate that their fear of third parties is well founded, as the male complainant, his father and his brother have previously been assaulted and threatened in relation to the incident in March 2007, and as D.M. has an influential position in Armenia and is connected to a local clan, the leader of which is an elected parliamentary official. They argue that they will not be able to seek protection with local authorities in Armenia due to D.M.’s and the clan’s connections to the authorities. They argue that it is common knowledge that D.M. is linked to the clan. State party’s further observations 6.1 On 7 February 2017, the State party submitted further observations on the complaint. It refers to its observations of 5 December 2015 and reiterates its position that it has not been established that the complainants would be subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon return to Armenia. In addition, the State party notes that the complainants question the asylum procedure in its entirety. It argues that the purpose of the general asylum procedure in the State party is to provide a more expeditious and careful examination of asylum applications. An assessment will be made in every case to determine whether an application can be examined with due care within a period of eight working days. If this is not the case, the applicant will be referred to the extended asylum procedure. The State party notes that before the start of the asylum procedure, the applicant is given a period of rest and preparation, which lasts at least six days, during which he or she has the opportunity to prepare for the asylum procedure. During this period, the applicant will also be informed of the importance of substantiating the application with documents. He or she will be prepared for the procedure and interviews by a representative of the Dutch Council for Refugees and by legal counsel. During that period, all asylum seekers can also choose to undergo a health check. The primary purpose of the health check is to assess whether any medical problems exist that may interfere with the applicant’s ability to make consistent, coherent and complete statements during the interviews. 6.2 The State party argues that the complainants’ asylum procedure entailed a careful examination of the risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The State party argues that the outcome of this examination was reviewed by domestic courts, which saw no reason to conclude that it had not been reached with due care. It argues that the complainants’ account in support of their asylum application, including the issues with D.M. 5 6 7 6 See CAT/C/NLD/CO/5-6. See www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/armenia. See CAT/C/ARM/CO/3, para. 8.