CAT/C/70/D/743/2016 4.18 In P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013, para. 7.3), the Human Rights Committee recalled its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it was found that the evaluation had been clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, and that it was generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk existed. 4.19 The State party further refers to N v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014, para. 6.6), in which the Human Rights Committee recalled that it was generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of a case, unless it could be established that such an assessment had been arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. The author in that case had not explained why the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board had been contrary to that standard, nor had he provided substantial grounds to support his claim that his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would have exposed him to a real risk of irreparable harm in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee accordingly concluded that the author had failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim of violation of article 7 for purposes of admissibility and found his communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 4.20 The State party observes that the same due process guarantees and careful consideration of the asylum application applied to the complainant in the present case. 4.21 Regarding the significance of medical information, the State party refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Cruz Varas and others v. Sweden, (application No. 15576/89), and the decision of the Committee concerning M.O. v. Denmark (CAT/C/31/D/209/2002). In both cases, the torture claims made by the complainant were dismissed, as was the medical information presented in that regard, owing to the general lack of credibility of the complainants. 4.22 The State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board’s case law includes cases similar to the present one, with asylum seekers having submitted that they have sustained physical or mental injury originating from torture. Sometimes such information is wholly or partially substantiated by medical examinations, and sometimes by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group. It is rather common that it appears from the conclusions of the examinations that agreement has been found between the objective findings and the asylum seeker’s statements on torture. If the Board disregards the asylum seeker’s torture claims – for example, if it cannot be considered as a fact that the asylum seeker has been involved in politics and that the involvement has allegedly been discovered by the authorities – such a conclusion does not independently give rise to the initiation of an examination. The Board may ascertain in such cases that an asylum seeker has suffered a physical or mental injury, but without establishing the reason for the infliction of the injury or by whom it was inflicted. No further clarifications could be obtained by requesting a forensic medical examination. Such an examination would merely show that the asylum seeker had suffered a physical and mental injury, which could have been inflicted in the way claimed or in another manner. Thus, such an examination cannot clarify whether the injury was caused by torture or otherwise (for example, as a result of a fight, an assault, an accident or an act of war). 4.23 If the asylum seeker’s torture claim must be disregarded as not credible, and the asylum seeker still claims to be at risk of torture on the same grounds, it cannot be considered as a fact that, on the same grounds, the asylum seeker risks torture upon return. The Refugee Appeals Board therefore finds that there is no need in such cases to initiate an examination for signs of torture because such an examination would not contribute to bringing out the facts of the case. 4.24 The State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board made a thorough assessment of the facts in the present case, including the findings of the medical examination report. The Board considered that there was no need to obtain a second opinion through a forensic medical examination for signs of torture as such an examination could not be expected to contribute to bringing out further facts in the case. 4.25 The State party has found no reason to question the Refugee Appeals Board’s assessment of this issue, and the complainant has not identified any irregularity in the 7