CAT/C/59/D/634/2014 submitted the first complainant’s medical records to the Board, from which it appears that the first complainant suffers from serious mental problems and that he has been receiving psychotherapy for a long time. 6.2 On 2 October 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the asylum proceedings. In justification for its repeated decision not to initiate the first complainant’s examination for signs of torture, the Board referred to its reasoning in the decision rendered on 12 September 2014 (see paras. 4.11 and 4.12). The Board emphasized that no substantial new information that could lead to a different assessment of the credibility of the complainants’ information on their grounds for seeking asylum had been given either in the complainants’ request for reopening or in their complaint to the Committee. 6.3 As to the complainants’ comments of 11 October 2015, the State party submits that it refers generally to its observations of 14 April 2015. Regarding the letters from neighbours referred to by the complainants (see para. 5.4), the State party submits that the Board received copies of the letters only on 16 October 2014, and maintains that the letters cannot be accorded any evidential value as they appear to be pleadings in support of the complainants’ case. 6.4 As regards the report made on the examination of the first complainant for signs of torture by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, the State party submits that the report cannot lead to a different assessment of the credibility of the complainants’ statements. The State party determines that although the findings of the examination for signs of torture, establishing that the first complainant suffers from bone thickening of both tibiae resulting from traumas to the periosteum, are consistent with the first complainant’s description of torture, that does not mean that he was subjected to the physical and/or mental abuse that he has relied upon in his asylum claim. 6.5 Based on the overall assessment of the information on file, including the medical records submitted by the complainants and the report made by Amnesty International, the State party maintains that the complainants have not rendered probable the grounds for asylum relied upon by them, including that the first complainant was detained by the authorities for 14 days in November 2013 and was subjected to torture during his detention. The State party adds that the most recent information provided by the complainants, including the report from Amnesty International, cannot explain the “inconsistent and elaborative elements” of the complainants’ statements. 6.6 The State party observes that it is aware of the Committee’s recent decision in F.K. v. Denmark.18 It submits that the reasoning given in that complaint is very specific and does not imply, in its opinion, a general obligation to perform an examination for signs of torture in cases where an asylum seeker’s statement on his grounds for asylum cannot be considered as fact because the statement is deemed to lack credibility. 6.7 The State party further observes that despite whether it may be considered a fact that a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights exists in Ingushetia, it finds that the complainants would not be at a specific and individual risk of abuse falling within article 3 of the Convention on their return. 19 With reference to rule 113 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party maintains that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of their complaint under article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. Should the Committee find the complaint admissible, the State party further maintains that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing 18 19 Communication No. 580/2014, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, para. 7.6. Reference is made to communications No. 555/2013, Z. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.2; and No. 571/2013, M.S. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.3. 11