Advance unedited version CAT/C/63/DR/698/2015 account not credible. On the contrary, one of the inconsistencies concerns a confusion between the last and the penultimate instances of rape. One instance took place in a 2-room apartment and the other in a 3-room apartment and on one occasion there were only three military officers and on the other occasion there was also a woman present. This confusion concerns an ancillary aspect of the account of repeated rapes and clearly cannot render the first complainant’s account, which she has otherwise recounted in a genuine and credible manner, not credible. 5.6 Similarly, the alleged discrepancy between the first interview regarding the person in January 2013, and the first and second substantive interviews in March and June 2013 cannot render the complainant’s account not credible. Great caution must be taken when relying on the first interview as its aim is not to elicit the details of an asylum claim, applicants are often reminded to keep their answers brief as they will later have an opportunity to expound their claim. Therefore the first complainant’s account in the January 2013 interview must be viewed with great caution. The correct account was given in the interview in June 2013, when the first complainant stated that the very first rape took place in an isolated alleyway. Regarding her answer in the March 2013 interview it is important to consider the context of this question. Just before being asked about the first incident of rape the first complainant had been asked about the last incident of rape. After these questions she was already confused and struggling to answer further questions, as the questioning had evoked traumatic memories. In this state of mind, she was not able to recount the details regarding the first incident of rape correctly. This is precisely the type of detail that a traumatised rape victim after repeated questions about the rape she had suffered would not be able to recall properly anymore. The first complainant had provided a genuine and credible account with ample detail and without embellishment, which supports the credibility of her account. 5.7 The fact that the first complainant cannot submit a medical certificate regarding her trauma is neither due to her unwillingness to submit herself to psychotherapy, nor due to the therapist’s unwillingness to accept her into therapy. She requires therapy and clearly shows signs of exposure to traumatic events. However, without further therapy no proper diagnosis can be made. The only reason she is barred from accessing psychological or psychiatric treatment is a result of her current status as a refused asylum seeker. She is therefore unable to submit a full medical certificate proving her trauma from the rape. It is due to the cantonal authorities denying her access to such treatment that she has not submitted a report. Indeed, it was already recommended by the person from the legal advice service (Hilfswerkvertretung) after the second interview in March 2013 that the Office for Migration obtain a psychological expert report. However, no such steps were taken by the authorities. Therefore, the lack of medical evidence cannot be considered as diminishing the first complainant’s credibility. In the circumstances of the case, the complainant submits that this in fact supports and corroborates her case, as she has always wanted to undergo psychotherapy and still desperately requires such treatment. It is for the State party to enable the first complainant to undergo an expert psychological or psychiatric examination and obtain a full psychiatric report.23 5.8 The complainant thus submits that the lack of an expert psychiatric or psychological report cannot count as a factor reducing her credibility. Rather, the existing medical certificate together with the fact that from a very early stage (March 2013) the authorities were made aware by the independent observer of the asylum interview (Hilfswerksvertretung) of the need of such a report and the first complainant’s wish to undergo therapy, corroborates her credibility. 5.9 Concerning the fact that the first complainant has not reported the rape to the authorities or a doctor, she has explained at length why neither of this would have made sense. As Yusup was a deputy commander of a battalion, she feared to file charges against him. She explained in her interview in June 2013 that when Yusup first started beating her she had threatened him that she wouldn’t just let him treat her like this implying that she 23 The complainant refers to the ECtHR case R.C. v. Sweden, in which the complainant had submitted a certificate from a doctor indicating that he may have suffered torture and in which the State party had argued that this was insufficient evidence to prove the torture. The ECtHR held that upon this indication it would have been for the government authorities to commission a full medical report. 9