CAT/C/60/D/602/2014 whether the above discrepancies between the complainant’s and his partner’s accounts of the incident that made them leave the Sudan in 2007 and the augmentative and inconsistent statements in the complainant’s account may be attributable to torture, as claimed by the complainant himself, but has found that this is not the case. 6.3 As regards the photo of scars on the complainant’s body, the State party observes that the fact that the complainant has scars on his body cannot be taken to mean that the complainant has been subjected to the physical abuse claimed by him. In cases in which the asylum seeker has claimed to have been subjected to torture as a result of circumstances that still apply, and in which there is therefore a risk that the asylum seeker will be subjected to torture again in case of return to the country of origin, the Refugee Appeals Board will normally not make arrangements for an examination for signs of torture if the relevant asylum seeker has appeared non-credible throughout the proceedings, as in the case at hand. The Board therefore fully rejects the asylum seeker’s statement on the alleged torture or the circumstances that gave rise to the torture. If the statement explaining why the asylum seeker was subjected to torture is rejected as being non-credible and the circumstances giving rise to the risk of torture in case of his return continue to prevail according to the asylum seeker, it also, naturally, cannot be considered a fact that, on that basis, the asylum seeker risks being subjected to torture in the case of return to the country of origin. The State party refers to the Committee’s decision in the case of S.A.P. v. Switzerland, 18 in which the complainant produced medical certificates in support of his application for asylum and the Committee stated: “S.A.P. claims that, as a result, she sustained extremely serious injuries and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the Committee considers that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence to allow it to conclude that the attested injuries were caused by the alleged acts of persecution and ill-treatment by those authorities.” 6.4 The State party submits that it is aware of the Committee’s recent decision in the case of F.K. v. Denmark,19 which reads: “[…] the Committee considers that, while the State party has raised serious credibility concerns, it drew an adverse credibility conclusion without adequately exploring a fundamental aspect of the complainant’s claim. The Committee therefore considers that, by rejecting the complainant’s asylum application without ordering a medical examination, the State party failed to sufficiently investigate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey”. In the opinion of the State party, it cannot be inferred from F.K. v. Denmark that there is a general obligation to perform an examination for signs of torture in cases where an asylum seeker’s statement on the grounds for asylum cannot be considered a fact because the statement is deemed to lack credibility. Accordingly, the reasoning given in F.K. v. Denmark is very specific. 6.5 The State party submits that, no matter whether it may be considered a fact that a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights exists in the Sudan, it finds that the complainant would not be at specific and individual risk of abuse falling within article 3 on his return. It referred to the Committee’s decisions in the cases of Z. v. Denmark20 and M.S. v. Denmark,21 in which the Committee states that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. The State party further maintains that the complainant’s reference to the judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in A.A. v. France and A.F. v. France (see para. 5.6 above) cannot lead to a different assessment of his case. 18 19 20 21 8 See communication No. 565/2013, S.A.P. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 25 November 2015, para. 7.4. See communication No. 580/2014, F.K. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, para. 7.6. See communication No. 555/2013, Z. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015. See communication No. 571/2013, M.S. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2015.