CAT/C/53/D/458/2011 refused to issue her a residence permit. 3 At that hearing, the complainant also informed the Board about her and her family’s detention in connection to her father’s activities and that they had been forced to run barefoot on gravel. The repeated detention of the complainant, including in secret prisons in connection with her and her father’s activities relating to the Oromo Liberation Front, as well as her extensive torture, was only mentioned in the Amnesty International report in June 2009. The State party finds it unlikely that the complainant would withhold such crucial information during the entire course of the asylum proceedings and supports the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board to disregard the alleged incidents. 4.8 The State party further addresses the justification for late submission of such important information, namely, the statement in the Amnesty International report of 2 June 2009 about the complainant’s apparent lack of awareness that information on her political activities, imprisonments and torture was of importance to her application for asylum. In this context, the State party observes that, in the introductory phase of asylum proceedings, the police provides detailed guidance both in writing and orally to asylum seekers about their duty to provide the information required to decide their application for asylum. In the present case, the complainant confirmed her statement and signed the asylum registration reports of 7 and 13 September 2007 after they were read out to her. The same guidance was given by the Immigration Service before the interview. The report of the interview with the Immigration Service of 14 March 2008 was also translated and reviewed by the complainant, who had an opportunity to make comments to it. No comments were made when the complainant signed the interview report. The complainant had an experienced asylum counsel assigned to her with whom she had two meetings before the hearing at the Refugee Appeals Board. Despite all of the above, even at the Refugee Appeals Board hearing on 17 October 2008, the complainant failed to explain the motive for applying for asylum. For the above reasons, the State party considers that the justification for the late submission of the crucial information submitted in the Amnesty International report must be rejected. 4.9 Regarding the interpreting problems alleged by the complainant, which resulted in incorrect information about her political activities and problems with the authorities in Ethiopia, the State party observes that no such problem appeared after the asylum registration report of 7 September 2007, when the complainant signed the interview report of the Immigration Service or at the Refugee Appeals Board hearing, where an Oromo interpreter was present. The State party thus considers that there is no basis to believe that there is information in the present case that has not been brought to light owing to interpreting problems. 4.10 Addressing the complainant’s claim that the Refugee Appeals Board committed an error in not requesting her to be examined for torture on 17 October 2008, the State party submits that the complainant did not request such an examination. Moreover, the plea submitted to the Refugee Appeals Board contained no information about her detention and torture. It was only at the hearing itself that the torture was mentioned by the complainant. Therefore, the State party does not find an error in the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board not to request a medical examination. 4.11 Regarding the allegation of the complainant that the refusal of the Refugee Appeals Board of 4 March 2010 to reopen the proceedings prevented her from submitting new substantial evidence, including the report on torture by Amnesty International of 2 June 2009, the State party states that the Refugee Appeals Board did in fact consider the 3 6 The type of the residence permit and the date of the decision of the Immigration Service are not specified.