CAT/C/59/D/634/2014 4.5 The State party observes that decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are based on an individual and specific assessment of the case. The assessment of evidence performed by the Board is based on an overall assessment of the asylum seeker’s statements and demeanour during the Board hearing in combination with the other information in the case, including the Board’s background information on the conditions in the country of origin. The Board may also examine witnesses. In its adjudication of the case, the Board will seek to determine what findings of fact it should make on the basis of the evidence. If the asylum seeker’s statements appear coherent and consistent, the Board will normally find them to be factual. In cases in which the asylum seeker’s statements throughout the proceedings are characterized by inconsistencies, changing statements, expansions or omissions, the Board will seek to clarify the reasons. In many cases, the asylum seeker’s statements will become more detailed and accurate in the course of the proceedings. There may be various reasons for this, such as the course of the proceedings and the asylum seeker’s particular situation, which the Board will include in its assessment of the asylum seeker’s credibility. However, inconsistent statements by the asylum seeker about crucial parts of his or her grounds for seeking asylum may weaken the asylum seeker’s credibility. In its assessment of inconsistencies, the Board will take into account, inter alia, the asylum seeker’s explanation of the reason for the inconsistencies and the asylum seeker’s particular situation, such as cultural differences, age and health. For example, individuals who have previously been subjected to torture cannot always be expected to give an account of the facts of the case in the same way as individuals who have not been subjected to torture. Finally, the Board, if in doubt about the asylum seeker’s credibility, will always assess to what extent the principle of the benefit of the doubt should be applied. 4.6 The Board is responsible not only for examining information on the specific facts of the case, but also for providing the necessary background information, including information on the situation in the asylum seeker’s country of origin, e.g., whether there is a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country in question. Background material is obtained from various sources, including country reports prepared by other Governments as well as information available from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and reputable non-governmental organizations. The Board is also legally obliged to take the international obligations of Denmark into account when exercising its powers under the Aliens Act. To that end, the Board and the Danish Immigration Service have jointly drafted several memorandums describing in detail the international legal protection accorded to asylum seekers under, inter alia, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These memorandums form part of the basis for the decisions made by the Board, and are regularly updated. 4.7 In cases where torture is invoked as one of the grounds for asylum, the Refugee Appeals Board may sometimes find it necessary to obtain further details on such torture before determining the case. As part of the appeals procedure, the Board may, for example, order an examination of the asylum seeker for signs of torture. Any such decision will typically not be made until the Board hearing, as the Board’s assessment of the necessity for such an examination often depends on the asylum seeker’s statement, including the asylum seeker’s credibility; it depends entirely on the circumstances of the specific case whether such an examination is ordered. If the Board considers it proved or possible that the asylum seeker has previously been subjected to torture but finds, upon a specific assessment of the asylum seeker’s situation, that there is no real risk of torture upon return at the present time, the Board will normally not order an examination. The Board normally does not order an examination for signs of torture where the asylum seeker has lacked 6