CAT/C/71/D/896/2018 that the complainant’s narrative has not been found credible by the domestic authorities for the following reasons: (a) on several points relating to the the circumstances of his trainings with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, he has provided cursory and contradictory statements; 9 (b) it is implausible that, despite his assertions to the contrary, he was not required to use weapons during the training, given the tense conflict between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan authorities at the time; (c) it is implausible in the light of the general country situation that, despite his assertions to the contrary, neither the complainant nor his family members were recruited by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam earlier than 2008; (d) it is implausible that the complainant, despite his assertions to the contrary, had never participated in the armed conflict between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan authorities, and his explanation that he managed to hide from the authorities seemed weak; (e) his account lacked details about the circumstances of his detention, in spite of its lengthy period (17 months); and (f) his statements about the circumstances of his escape from detention were found to be implausible.10 4.4 The State party submits that, in addition, the domestic courts could not accept any of the documents submitted by the complainant as evidence because they were found by the Royal Military and Border Police not to have been issued by the competent authorities, due to irregularities detected in their format. Even though the complainant was given the opportunity by the District Court of The Hague to obtain another expert opinion within three months in order to prove that the documents were genuine, he failed to do so. 4.5 With regard to the forensic medical report submitted in the context of the fourth set of asylum proceedings, the State party notes that, on 14 March 2011, the complainant was examined and found to be medically fit to be interviewed. During his interviews, he explicitly stated that there were no medical reasons that would preclude his being interviewed. It was only in the fourth set of proceedings that the complainant indicated that his medical condition, namely, the progression of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, may have interfered with his ability to provide a complete and coherent account of his case. The State party submits in that regard that the complainant lacked credibility not only due to the inconsistencies detected in his narrative, but also because some of his allegations seemed to be in conflict with the general country information. In the light of those circumstances, the domestic courts did not deem it necessary to request further medical examination or to give the complainant the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the causes of the complainant’s injuries, the State party underlines that the medical report took the complainant’s statements for granted and failed to consider other circumstances that could have led to his injuries or his having developed post-traumatic stress disorder. Accordingly, the State party concludes that it had no obligation to further investigate the complainant’s risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to Sri Lanka. 4.6 The State party submits that, contrary to what the complainant argues, it cannot be assumed that he left Sri Lanka illegally. He has not submitted any documents to establish his nationality, identity or travel route, or to demonstrate the veracity of his account. He did not provide detailed, coherent and verifiable statements regarding his journey. For example, he did not specify the airline on whose flight he took from Sri Lanka. He has also been unable to recall the name indicated in his fake passport or the language in which the passport was issued. It is reasonable to expect him to be able to provide such basic information. 4.7 The State party observes that, in addition, the complainant has not shown that the Sri Lankan authorities are aware of his involvement with the Tamil Youth Organization in the Netherlands and his participation in several demonstrations against the Sri Lankan authorities. In any event, those activities are too marginal for the complainant to be seen as an activist 9 10 The State party submits that the complainant was unable to provide the names of the trainers and other leaders of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam from his region. He was not consistent in his claims as to whether he had to dig bunkers or trenches. The State party argues that, at the beginning of the asylum proceedings, the complainant submitted that it was a Sri Lankan soldier who had helped him escape from detention. It is implausible, however, according to the State party, that a Sri Lankan soldier, who was completely unknown to the complainant and spoke very little Tamil, would take the risk to facilitate the escape of a Tamil detainee. 5