CAT/C/61/D/725/2016 psychiatric hospital owing to suicidal tendencies.24 The complainant’s experience of sexual torture was detailed in the psychiatrist’s statement of 15 June 2015 and his statement of 24 July 2015, both of which were submitted in the second ministerial appeal of 2 August 2015, which was rejected on 7 August 2015. Just as it had at the Tribunal appeals stage, his claim of sexual torture was not taken into account. Three experienced health professionals, a psychiatrist, a counsellor and his doctor concluded that the psychological effects of torture and trauma had influenced when and how the complainant reported details of his claim and in particular of his torture. According to the psychiatrist’s report of 15 July 2015, the complainant often felt helpless and overwhelmed emotionally, and that no one believed him; he had tried to talk about the torture previously but his mind went blank and he experienced a severe shame. The psychiatrist also addresses the issue of shame and its inhibitory effect in an addendum of 18 November 2016 to the psychiatric report.25 5.5 As to the issue of the complainant’s credibility, findings of lack of credibility led to the incorrect conclusion that he had not been tortured and that other parts of his protection claims were not true. It is evident that the complainant’s credibility was called into question at the initial decision stage and this seems to have had an influence in subsequent appeals stages of the process. In relation to the grounds for this initial assessment of lack of credibility, the complainant notes that the decision makers referred to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and to guidelines by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regarding the assessment of the credibility, notably that “benefit of the doubt should be given to those who are generally credible, but are unable to substantiate all their claims”. Despite those references in assessing the credibility, the original decision maker did not adequately take them into account and erred in deciding that the complainant was not a credible person. This negative assessment of his credibility then had a major influence on further appeals processes and in particular on the disclosure of torture, which was first recorded in the decision record at the Refugee Review Tribunal appeals level. 5.6 The complainant submits the decision maker’s assessment of 23 August 2012 of the complainant’s lack of credibility also failed to take into adequate account the influence of interpreter variations and difficulties and an understanding of the psychological effects of torture and trauma on memory and recounting of experience. The complainant explains that different Tamil interpreters were used at different stages of the process and it is reasonable to assume that the quality of interpreting may also have varied. Health professionals involved with the complainant — both the psychiatrists and the counsellor — state they experienced problems with interpreting services. The interpretation during the counselling sessions with the counsellor and the sessions with the psychiatrist took place over the telephone. According to the psychiatrist, the complainant was not articulate, spoke slowly and his voice was so subdued that the interpreter had to ask him to move right next to the telephone to hear him more clearly. 5.7 As to the psychological effects of torture and trauma on memory and recounting of experience, in his report of 23 August 2012, the decision maker found the complainant to be “well educated and able to comprehend the questions and articulate his answers clearly”. On that basis, the decision maker concluded that the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account were not explained; the decision maker was therefore not satisfied with the complainant’s general credibility and the credibility of his claims. At the time of the second ministerial intervention request, another decision maker was involved, the original decision maker not being in a position to assess the complainant’s mental health. At that point, the complainant had not disclosed his experience of torture, and in particular the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder that inhibited his ability to recount a consistent narrative were clearly misinterpreted as inconsistencies, which led the decision maker to doubt the credibility of his claims. The decision maker at the second ministerial level did, however, have specialist information regarding the complainant’s mental health and its impact on his ability to put forward his protection claim. The complainant challenges the State party 24 25 10 He remained in the hospital for three days, after hospital staff assessed him to be at high risk of suicide. Annexed to the complainant’s comments.