CAT/C/59/D/634/2014 5.6 As to the State party’s argument as summarized in paragraph 4.13, the complainants submit that the case of Ke Chun Rong v. Australia does not differ from theirs on the point concerning the perception of torture victims, i.e., that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture.15 Furthermore, similar to what has happened in their case, the Australian authorities had dismissed the case of the complainant — who had been tortured — as lacking credibility. 5.7 The complainants further submit that it transpires from the State party’s submissions (see paras. 4.7 and 4.11) that the Board may sometimes order an examination of an asylum seeker for signs of torture if it finds him or her credible. They find this argumentation unconvincing, as the torture examination is necessary precisely to verify the asylum seeker’s credibility. The complainants recall that the first complainant mentioned to both the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board that he had been subjected to torture; nonetheless, the Danish immigration authorities did not consider ordering that he be examined for signs of torture. 5.8 The complainants argue, therefore, that they continue to face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture upon return to the Russian Federation, as the first complainant is viewed by the authorities as an accomplice of insurgents. They reiterate that the security situation in Ingushetia and in the North Caucasus in general is very serious; that the first complainant suffered severe torture in detention in the past and there is medical evidence to support his claims; and that the authorities in the Russian Federation are still searching for him. 5.9 On 2 November 2015, the complainants submitted copies of articles published in the Russian language on the Caucasian Knot website on 29 October 2013, 16 explaining that they only recently became aware of the existence of these articles though Chechen acquaintances residing in Denmark. The articles in question describe events that occurred on 27 October 2013 in a forest area near the village of Galashki, i.e., the place to which the first complainant was requested to drive the two men with their goods on 15 September 2013. The articles specifically mention that officers of the Ministry of Defence were attacked by two insurgents during an operation aimed at the identification and detention of members of illegal armed groups. In the course of the operation, one of the insurgents, R.B., was killed, while the second one managed to escape. In this context, the complainants submit that, during the first complainant’s detention in November 2013, he was confronted several times with, inter alia, the name of the insurgent mentioned in the articles as having been killed. They conclude, therefore, that the articles support the credibility of the statements made by the first complainant during the asylum proceedings. 17 Additional submissions by the parties By the State party 6.1 On 8 April 2016, the State party submitted that, on 24 October 2014, the complainants had requested the Refugee Appeals Board to reopen the asylum proceedings with a view to granting asylum to the complainants or, in the alternative, initiating an examination of the first complainant for signs of torture. On 11 August 2015, they 15 16 17 10 Ke Chun Rong v. Australia, para. 7.5. The following articles are available on file: “One person killed in crossfire in Ingushetia”, “Law enforcement officers are looking for the second participant in an attack on military personnel” and “Fighting ended in the Sunzhen region of Ingushetia, law enforcement officers comb a forest”. The English translation of these articles was provided by the complainants on 12 April 2016. Reference is made to the statements made by the first complainant at the asylum screening interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service, at the substantive asylum interview conducted by the Danish Immigration Service and at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board.