obliged in asylum cases involving allegations of torture to provide for its own MLR if it disputes the medical evidence relied on by the applicant. RC v Sweden – the ECtHR recognises that a state has a duty to ascertain relevant facts, particularly in asylum cases involving allegations of torture In RC v Sweden106 the European Court of Human Rights judged that the state has a duty to ascertain all relevant facts, particularly in circumstances where there is a strong indication that an applicant’s injuries may have been caused by torture.”107 An asylum applicant alleging that he had suffered torture in Iran submitted a medical certificate, confirming that injuries on his body were likely to have originated from torture. The Swedish authorities refused to accept the medical report as proof of torture, and the asylum application was rejected. At the request of the ECtHR, the applicant submitted a further forensic medical report; its findings strongly indicated that the applicant had been tortured. The Court considered that if the state had any doubts about the applicant’s medical evidence, it should have arranged for an expert report on its own initiative. The Court considered that, “while the burden of proof, in principle, rests on the applicant, the Court disagrees with the Government’s view that it was incumbent upon him to produce such expert opinion. In cases such as the present one, the state has a duty to ascertain all relevant facts, particularly in circumstances where there is a strong indication that an applicant’s injuries may have been caused by torture.”108 The recognition of MLRs within the second phase of the EU Common European Asylum System (CEAS) The decision in RC v Sweden was positive in endorsing the significance of MLRs in asylum proceedings. However, the IRCT considers that further safeguards are needed to ensure that VoTs can access MLRs early on in the asylum proceedings. National legislation should place an obligation on the state to systematically request MLRs to be submitted in asylum procedures where allegations of torture are raised. However, as the findings in Part 2 demonstrate, only three countries represented in this report currently acknowledged MLRs in the national legislation. The changes to the Asylum Procedures Directive recognise to some extent the importance of medical examinations in asylum proceedings, and that personnel involved in decision-making must be trained to recognise symptoms that VoTs may display. However, the renegotiated APD only recognises that national measures dealing with identification and documentation of symptoms and signs of torture may be based on the Istanbul Protocol guidelines. It is regrettable that the changes do not recognise that states must have an obligation to include the Istanbul Protocol in all training involving the treatment of VoTs in asylum procedures. How will the changes to the EU Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) affect the use and acceptance of MLRs in EU Member States? Within the EU, the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD)109 lays down minimum standards on procedures that Member States should implement for granting and withdrawing refugee status. As part of the second phase of the CEAS, changes to the APD have been agreed between the European Parliament and the Council, based on the European Commission’s proposal. The revision of the APD110 — now formally approved — promotes the strengthening of procedural safeguards for VoTs, for example: • It recognises that some asylum applicants may be in need of “special procedural guarantees”, if their ability to benefit from the rights or comply with the obligations in the APD is “limited” due to “individual circumstances”. The categories of vulnerable persons to which this article refers to are listed in Article 21 and includes VoTs (Recital 30, Article 2(d)). ... Recognising victims of torture in national asylum procedures / 59