CAT/C/62/D/696/2015 investigate the risk of complainants being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights if deported, it must be in a position to assess the asylum seeker’s individual situation, which can be impossible when the statements provided to substantiate the asylum request give reason to question his or her credibility. 11 6.11 The State party does not consider that the specific reasons the complainant gave for leaving Sri Lanka are credible, namely that he had been arrested by the Sri Lankan authorities and the Karuna Group and was still wanted in connection with his statement that his friend had hidden weapons in the garden of his parents’ home. 6.12 The State party emphasizes that the complainant’s statements about his first arrest in 2008 and his second arrest in 2009 are credible. On the basis of the file, it has been satisfactorily established that the complainant had difficulty with the chronology of the alleged events in his account in support of his asylum application. Apart from the chronology, his other statements regarding those events were consistent and the State party therefore considers his account of the first two arrests credible. The State party also presumes that he was assaulted or tortured by the Sri Lanka Army during his first arrest. However, this does not mean that the complainant would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon returning to Sri Lanka. 6.13 The State party gives no credence to the account of the third arrest by the Sri Lanka Army in 2009 or the arrest by the Karuna Group in 2010 because the complainant’s friend had allegedly hidden weapons in the vicinity of his parents’ home, for the following reasons: (a) During his second interview, the complainant made no mention of the weapons hidden by his friend near his house or their connection to his arrest. He explicitly stated that he did not know what his friend had done and why he had been imprisoned. Only after the interview, the complainant mentioned the hidden weapons and their connection to his arrest; (b) The complainant’s explanation for withholding the information, namely that he was afraid that the report of the interview would be sent to the Sri Lankan authorities, is unconvincing, because he made other accusations against the authorities, for instance the allegations of torture and assault in 2008, and the rape and killing of his sister; (c) The complainant not only withheld the information, but also made contradictory statements about how and when he found out that his friend had hidden weapons; (d) There were a number of inconsistencies in key elements of the complainant’s account that make it implausible that he is wanted by the authorities for alleged involvement in hiding weapons for LTTE; (e) Other things, such as his easy escape when he was supposedly held by the Karuna Group, the fact that he was able to leave the country on two occasions with a legally acquired passport and to return once without difficulty, led the State party to conclude that there were significant inconsistencies, implausible statements and lack of clarity on issues that were relevant to assessing a claim. Those statements would be pertinent to the Committee’s deliberations as to whether the complainant would be at risk of torture were he to return to Sri Lanka. 6.14 Regarding the medical examination conducted by Amnesty International (in the Medical Research Group report), the State party notes that Amnesty International doctors were unable to determine with certainty whether the scars that the complainant attributed to assault during his fourth arrest were in fact the result of mistreatment by members of the Karuna Group in 2010. Amnesty International concluded that its findings with respect to the two scars “could” be consistent with the event described. The State party also notes that, given the wording in the Amnesty International report to explain the causality of the complainant’s injuries, leaves open the possibility that the scars could have been sustained differently from the way the complainant described. Especially considering that the 11 6 Ibid., D.N.W. v. Sweden (application No. 29946/10) judgment of 6 December 2012.