CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015 Advance unedited version asylum proceedings; and that the legal advice service representative (Hilfswerkvertretung) had recommended after her second interview in March 2013 that the FOM obtain a psychological expert report yet no such steps were taken by the authorities. It also takes note that in one of the substantive interviews the legal advice centre representative was male, which made it more difficult for her to recount the details of the various instances of rape. It further notes the first complainant’s assertion that the lack of medical evidence cannot be considered as diminishing her credibility, because she was unable to submit a full medical certificate proving her trauma from the rape due to the authorities denying her access to such medical assessment and treatment. It also notes her assertion that there can be no doubt regarding the credibility of her marriage which was established by the Red Cross and her husband’s relatives. 9.6 The Committee recalls its General Comment No.4 on the implementation of article 3, wherein it states that in the procedure of assessment, the State party should provide the person concerned with fundamental guarantees and safeguards, especially if the person is in a particularly vulnerable situation. In particular, an examination by a qualified medical doctor, included as requested by the complainant to prove the torture that he/she has suffered, should always be ensured, regardless of the authorities assessment on the credibility of the allegation,36 so that the authorities deciding on a given case of deportation are able to complete the assessment of the risk of torture on the basis of the result of the medical and psychological examinations, without any reasonable doubt. 9.7 The Committee notes the first complainant’s assertion that she is unable to submit a full medical certificate proving her trauma from rape. It takes note that it is undisputed that the first complainant was examined and issued a psycho-social service report in July 2015; that she was able to undergo psychological treatment in June 2016; that she has been in regular psychological treatment since then and that another psycho-social service report was issued on 1 February 2017. It further notes the State party’s argument that the medical report of 1 February 2017 makes the diagnoses of adjustment disorders, difficulties related to the fact of being victim of crime and terrorist acts as well as difficulties related to the exposure to a disaster, war and other hostilities which are not entirely new elements as at least two of these diagnoses were made already in the complainant’s earlier medical report of 27 July 2015 by the same psychologist. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the diagnoses made do not in themselves prove the ill-treatment, notably the rapes alleged by the first complainant, which were considered to be improbable by the national authorities; that the report of 1 February 2017 contains anamnesis established solely on the basis of the first complainant's statements and that regarding the question as to whether she showed signs of torture or ill-treatment, the doctors only noted that the symptoms observed could be caused by a traumatic event, but without qualifying it. 9.8 The Committee notes that the complainants were requested to pay an advance of 800 Swiss francs. It recalls its jurisprudence 37 and General Comment No. 4, according to which the recourse should be accessible in practice without obstacles of any nature. 38 It also notes that the complainants allegations were assessed as unfounded by the TAF as the first complainant had presented different versions of the incidents at the various hearings. The Committee further notes that the State party challenges the first complainant’s credibility on all accounts. With regard to the material evidence provided by the complainants with the application for re-examination of their asylum request, the Committee takes note of the State party’s assessment that the police summons presented in support of the complainant’s claim of persecution, showed signs of forgery and were not accepted as genuine documents. The Committee observes that faced with the irregularities concerning the alleged summonses, the first complainant could not make them plausible before the national authorities. 9.9 In the particular circumstances of the case and in view of the medical reports produced, the Committee considers that the State party has complied with the above mentioned requirement by enabling the complainant to undergo medical and psychological 36 See M.B. et al. v. Denmark (CAT/C/59/D/634/2014), para.9.8. See Abdulkarim v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/710/2015), para.6.2 38 General Comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 35. 37 14