CAT/C/20/D/65/1997 page 9 spent by the author's legal representative in preparation of the hearing of his case before the Immigration Board was minimal and that his case was therefore not fully presented. 6.7 As regards the inconsistencies in the author's story, counsel explains that these are caused by the difficulties the author was facing in trying to adapt to a new society, whereas suffering the consequences of torture. Counsel contends that the authorities lacked understanding for the author's situation. He stresses that the author suffers from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and that this explains the inconsistencies in his story and his gaps of memory. In this context, counsel refers to the Committee's prior jurisprudence. 6.8 As regards the offer to give him a diplomatic post, counsel explains that the Government in Djibouti has on numerous occasions tried to win over opponents by offering them high posts and that it needs educated collaborators. 6.9 Counsel refers to the medical evidence and submits that there is no doubt that the author has been tortured. He asserts that in view of the past, continued detention, torture and other ill-treatment is the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the author's forced return to Djibouti. 6.10 As regards the State Party's argument that its immigration authorities have a lot of experience in handling asylum cases, counsel submits that the authorities tend not to accept incoherent and contradictory statements from persons who have been subjected to torture, although testimony from experts in the field demonstrate that these inconsistencies are the result of the effects of the torture on the person. According to counsel, most immigration officials have little understanding of these problems and don’t follow regular training programmes. As regards the availability of information, although information from non-governmental organizations is available, officials prefer to rely on information available through diplomatic channels. Counsel concludes that the standard applied by the State Party is not as high as it claims. 6.11 As regards the State Party's argument in relation to possible diverging case-law by the European Commission of Human Rights and the Committee against Torture, counsel submits that these bodies are independent of each other and work in a different context. Counsel disagrees with the State Party's concerns and states that, if a different standard is applied by the two bodies, all the State Party has to do is to apply the stricter of the two. The Committee's admissibility decision 7. At its nineteenth session, the Committee examined the admissibility of the communication. It noted with appreciation the information given by the State Party that the Immigration Board has stayed the enforcement of the expulsion order against the author, pending the Committee's final decision. 8. The Committee ascertained, as it was required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or