CAT/C/53/D/458/2011 torture. She asserts that, by questioning the medical evidence from the Danish Red Cross 7 and the Amnesty International medical group without carrying out itself a neutral medical examination on the fact of torture, the State party violated article 3 of the Convention. 5.3 Regarding the country of origin information, the complainant notes that the State party failed to provide information on why the Refugee Appeals Board did not adjourn the proceedings to collect new country information about the assault on Oromo people in 2008. 5.4 The complainant refers to communication No. 339/2008, Said Amini v. Denmark,8 in which the Committee found a violation of article 3 of the Convention, to point out the similarity between that case and her own. State party’s further submission 6.1 On 2 January 2012, the State party submitted further information. 6.2 Referring to the complainant’s allegation that the Danish police officers should have observed that she had scars all over her feet, legs and knees, and should also have questioned her about her asylum motive, the State party observes that it is not the job of the police to establish the motive for asylum and much less to carry out a physical examination of asylum seekers. The police provides detailed guidelines to the asylum seekers about their duty to provide information on their asylum motive. The police also drafts a report on the basis of the information submitted by the asylum seeker. This report is read out to the asylum seeker and is signed by him or her. 6.3 The State party rejects the complainant’s claim about questioning by the Refugee Appeals Board of the Amnesty International medical group findings on her torture. The State party submits that, although the Board did not question the findings of the medical report, the objective findings of the Amnesty International medical group cannot be accepted as a proof that the complainant incurred the injuries in the manner stated by her. Thus, for instance, the finding of scars does not mean that the complainant has been subjected to torture. 6.4 On 14 June 2012 the State party submitted to the Committee the observations of the Refugee Appeals Board to the complainant’s additional comments. The opinion of the Board concerns the report of the Amnesty International medical group of 2 June 2009. The Board states that it does not doubt that the complainant has scars on her body, but, having made an overall assessment of all the evidence in the case, together with the medical report, the Board could not consider that the scars on the complainant’s body had come about in the manner described by the complainant. It also noted that the Amnesty International report did not conclude that the complainant had been subjected to the outrages claimed. 6.5 Regarding the complainant’s submission that no medical examination was requested by the Board, the State party refers to its original comments on admissibility and merits and reiterates that there was no reason for it to request such an examination. In its original submission, the State party explained that the information about torture had been submitted by the complainant at a very late stage, namely, at the hearing by the Refugee Appeals 7 8 8 The complainant submitted to the Committee the translation of the Danish Red Cross medical report of 24 September 2008, which mentions that the complainant and her family were allegedly detained and mistreated and that the complainant was allegedly sold by her mother to a Somalian man and raped by him and other men on her way to Europe. The report includes that the complainant was very exhausted physically and mentally but that, by the time the report was made, her condition had improved thanks to the medical and psychological treatment received. The report does not provide any details of medical examination or traces of torture. Decision of 15 November 2010.