CAT/C/60/D/602/2014 by the complainant’s partner and the background information available on the situation in the complainant’s home region, the majority of Board members could not accept as facts the complainant’s statements about conflicts with authorities or others in the Sudan prior to his departure. The State party moreover maintains that neither the fact that the decision made by the Board was a majority decision nor the fact that the complainant comes from a country where gross violations of human rights occur can lead to a different assessment of the case. 4.13 The State party submits that no new information has been provided in the complainant’s complaint to the Committee about his ill-treatment in his country of origin, as compared with the information available when the Board decided the appeal and which therefore formed part of the basis of its decision. Nor has any other information been provided that may result in a different assessment of the credibility of the complainant’s information on his grounds for seeking asylum. The State party also refers to the findings made by the European Court of Human Rights in several cases concerning the assessment of credibility in asylum cases, including its judgment in the case of R.C. v. Sweden: “The Court observes, from the outset, that there is a dispute between the parties as to the facts of this case and that the Government have questioned the applicant’s credibility and pointed to certain inconsistencies in his story. The Court acknowledges that it is often difficult to establish, precisely, the pertinent facts in cases such as the present one. It accepts that, as a general principle, the national authorities are best placed to assess not just the facts but, more particularly, the credibility of witnesses since it is they who have had an opportunity to see, hear and assess the demeanour of the individual concerned.”9 4.14 The State party further submits that it also follows from the case law of the Committee that due weight must be accorded to findings of fact made by government authorities. 10 The Refugee Appeals Board made its decision on the basis of a procedure during which the complainant had the opportunity to present his views, both in writing and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel. The decision made by the Board was thus based on a comprehensive and thorough examination of all the evidence in the case. When assessing the complainant’s credibility, the Board made an overall assessment, which included the complainant’s statements and demeanour at the Board hearing in conjunction with the other information available in the case. In accordance with the case law of the Committee, the Board emphasized in that connection whether the statements were coherent, likely and consistent. In his complaint to the Committee, the complainant failed to provide any new, specific details about his situation and he is thus, in fact, trying to use the Committee as an appellate body and have the factual circumstances relied upon in support of his claim for asylum reassessed by the Committee. The State party maintains that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of fact of the Board, which is better placed to assess the factual circumstances in the complainant’s case. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In submissions dated 21 January 2016 and 2 February 2016, the complainant submits that the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board did not appear to understand the need to carry out medical examinations in torture cases. When he arrived in Denmark, he and his partner were unable to obtain family reunification under the existing rules. As a victim of torture in his country of origin, he filed an application for protection in Denmark against deportation to the Sudan. 5.2 The complainant submits that, in all communications concerning deportations, it is argued by the State party that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case as a reason to declare their communications ill-founded, but very little reasoning is provided indicating why the communications are ill-founded. He further notes that he agrees with the State party that he is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body, since he is “desperately in need of the assistance” of the Committee. The domestic law does not allow 9 10 See European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden (application No. 41827/07), judgment of 9 March 2010, para. 52. Reference is also made to European Court of Human Rights, M.E. v. Sweden (application No. 71398/12), judgment of 26 June 2014, para. 78. See, inter alia, Otman v. Denmark, para. 6.5. 5