CAT/C/70/D/743/2016 The [Refugee Appeals Board] observes in respect of the medical examination of the applicant conducted by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group that, on several points, the findings mentioned in the report of 25 September 2014 do not accord with the information on physical abuse against the applicant stated by him in the asylum proceedings. Accordingly, he stated as follows in his asylum application form of 20 December 2012 to clarify how he had been subjected to torture or other physical abuse: “As a result of torture, my left arm is broken; in the middle of my eyebrow, in the middle of my forehead, under my chin and on my head, there are still permanent signs of manipulation … There is a fracture and a twist of the left arm in two places as a consequence of torture.” 4.14 The Refugee Appeals Board noted that the torture described by the complainant was seen as inconsistent with the report dated 25 September 2014. With respect to the complainant’s arms and legs, the report simply states: “Normal strength, sensitivity and mobility. Nothing abnormal detected.” By contrast, the report makes multiple references to beating on the soles of the feet (falanga), a form of torture; however, the complainant did not mention this in his asylum application form, at the interviews conducted by the Danish Immigration Service or at the hearing before the Board on 30 August 2013. 4.15 The Refugee Appeals Board further noted that, with the exception of the complainant’s fear of punishment for evasion of compulsory military service, his grounds for seeking asylum related to the termination of his membership of PKK and the Kurdistan Communities Union and his escape from a training camp in 2010, and that, in any event, the conclusion of a medical examination is not seen to be directly linked to the assessment of the complainant’s credibility. Moreover, the Board found no basis for considering the complainant’s statements on and recollection of the events included in this part of the asylum claim to have been affected in a crucial way by any physical abuse to which he had allegedly been subjected. The Board further found that the conclusions of the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group report did not independently add to the credibility of the complainant’s grounds for asylum, including that he had already been subjected to torture as described by him, in the circumstances described by him. 4.16 Regarding the credibility assessment by the Refugee Appeals Board, the State party refers to the Views of the Human Rights Committee concerning K v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014, paras. 7.4–7.5), in which that Committee recalled that it was generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether a real risk of irreparable harm existed if a person was removed from their territory, unless it could be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 4 The Human Rights Committee noted that the Board had thoroughly examined each of the author’s claims, and particularly analysed the alleged threats allegedly received by the author in Afghanistan, and had found them to be inconsistent and implausible on several grounds; and that the author challenged the assessment of evidence and the factual conclusions reached by the Board, but he did not explain why that assessment would be arbitrary or otherwise amount to a denial of justice. 4.17 The State party further notes that in Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012, para. 7.5), the Human Rights Committee observed that the authors’ refugee claims had been thoroughly assessed by the State party’s authorities, which had found that the authors’ declarations about the motive for seeking asylum and their account of the events that had caused their fear of torture or killing were not credible. The Human Rights Committee went on to observe that the authors had not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process, or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities had failed to take properly into account. The Human Rights Committee therefore noted that, in the light of those observations, it could not conclude that the authors would face a real risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 or 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights if they had been removed to the Russian Federation. 4 6 See, among others, Z v. Australia (CCPR/C/111/D/2049/2011), para 9.3; B.L. v. Australia (CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011), para. 7.3; and P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.3.