CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 and especially outside of Punjab. The complainants’ relatives and their two sons continue to reside in India. 4.6 The State party notes that the complainants have not submitted to the Committee any materials that are significantly different to what was provided to multiple domestic decision makers. Since there is no evidence of arbitrariness or denial of justice in the consideration of the complainants’ various domestic applications, the State party submits that the Committee should give considerable weight to the domestic decision makers’ assessment of the complainants’ credibility, as well as the decision makers’ overall assessment of the significance of the complainants’ evidence. 4.7 The State party maintains that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their allegations that they were tortured in December 2007, January 2008 and April 2009. To support their allegations, the complainants rely on the following evidence: letters from doctors in Punjab; letters from a doctor in the State party; a letter from a psychologist in the State party; affidavits from residents of their village, including their village sarpanch and a local lawyer; and a letter from a lawyer based in Punjab. The first two letters are from doctors at the Nirmala Mission Hospital in Punjab. The letter concerning the first complainant states that he was admitted for medical treatment on two separate occasions: 2 January 2008 and 5 April 2009. These are the two dates on which, according to him, he was released from police detention and sought medical treatment. The letter states that, on the first occasion, he had “swollen genitals, bruises and contusions all over his body”, and “was complaining of pain in the entire body”. It states that he was admitted as an inpatient for one day and then received outpatient treatment for 10 more days. The letter states that, on the second occasion, he “was bearing the same types of complaints as before like cuts, bruises and abrasions on his back, arms, shoulders and legs” and that he was treated at the hospital for two days and elsewhere for a week. The State party observes that the injuries described in this letter are generally consistent with the police treatment described by the first complainant in his personal narrative. 4.8 The letter concerning the second complainant states that she was a patient at the hospital from 4-6 April 2009. The date of admission is the date when, according to her husband, she was released from police detention. The letter states that she had “lash marks, swelling and pain in [sic] all over her body especially in vaginal area, bruises, contusions and depression due to beating and rape in police custody”. The letter states that after being released from the hospital, she was treated at home for one week. The State party observes that the injuries described in this letter are also generally consistent with the police treatment described by the complainants. The State party further observes that this letter from a medical doctor not only describes the physical condition but seems to affirm the source of the condition as being the police. Although these letters are both generally consistent with the complainant’s claims, the State party submits that the letters are of limited reliability and should therefore be given little weight. The letters are dated 25 February 2011, almost two years after the most recent events described; they are not contemporaneously prepared medical records or notarized affidavits. Neither of the doctors who signed the letters claims to have based his or her statements on consultation of any medical records that were prepared at the time of the treatment described. In fact, the complainants have not submitted any objective, contemporaneous documents attesting to their medical treatment or made any claim that such documents exist. In particular, the doctor who signed the letter concerning the first complainant does not claim to have personally provided or witnessed the described treatment, and the letter does not identify who treated the patient. The letter, therefore, does not even explain the source of the information being conveyed. The author of the letter concerning the second complainant, in contrast, claims to be the doctor who treated her. However, the author does not indicate whether she has personal knowledge of the events that created the physical symptoms or is relying on the statements of the patient for that information. Further, the RPD decision 6