CAT/C/59/D/634/2014 credibility throughout the proceedings,10 and the Board therefore has to reject the asylum seeker’s statement on torture in its entirety. 4.8 Where the Refugee Appeals Board considers an asylum seeker to fall within section 7 of the Aliens Act, provided that his or her statements, including those relating to torture, are true, but finds that the correctness of the statements is subject to some uncertainty, it may decide to adjourn the proceedings pending an examination of the asylum seeker for signs of torture that may be able to support the asylum seeker’s statements. When torture is invoked as a ground for claiming asylum, factors like the nature of the torture, including the extent, grossness and frequency of the abuse, and the asylum seeker’s age may be accorded importance in the determination of the case. Moreover, the time of the abuse relative to the asylum seeker’s departure and any changes in the regime in his or her country of origin may be decisive in deciding whether residence is granted. An asylum seeker’s fear of abuse in case of return to his or her country of origin may result in asylum being granted if it is supported by an objectively founded assumption that the asylum seeker will be subjected to abuse upon return. 4.9 With reference to rule 113 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party submits 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. Thus, it has not been sufficiently substantiated that there are substantial grounds for believing that they are in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to the Russian Federation. The complaint is therefore inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. 4.10 Should the Committee find the complaint admissible, the State party submits that the complainants have not sufficiently established that it would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention to return them to the Russian Federation. In this connection, it observes that the complainants have not provided to the Committee any new information on their conflicts in the Russian Federation beyond the information already available to the Refugee Appeals Board when it made its decisions on 12 September 2014. 4.11 As to the complainants’ argument that the Danish immigration authorities rejected their asylum applications without summoning the first complainant for an examination for signs of torture, the State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board does not initiate an examination for signs of torture in cases in which the Board cannot accept as a fact the asylum seeker’s statement on his or her grounds for asylum (see also para. 4.7). The State party recalls that, in its decision of 12 September 2014, the Board did not consider to be fact the first complainant’s statement on his grounds for seeking asylum because, on central points, he had made inconsistent statements, including on the incident that gave rise to the authorities’ interest in him. The Board emphasized, inter alia, that the first complainant had made inconsistent statements11 on the type and quantity of goods bought by the two men in his grocery shop on 15 September 2013, on the language used in the telephone conversation by one of the two men who bought goods, on the place of delivery of the goods and on whether he had been instructed where to stop the car, and on the circumstances after waking up in prison (see also para. 2.7). The first complainant’s statement also contained many small inconsistencies, which, however, could not in themselves be accorded crucial importance. 10 11 Reference is made, inter alia, to communications No. 209/2002, M.O. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 12 November 2003, paras. 6.4-6.6; and No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 May 2014, para. 8.4. The State party makes a detailed comparison of 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. 7