CAT/C/61/D/625/2014 political involvement has been discovered by the authorities, there is no need to allow a medical examination for signs of torture. In such cases, a medical examination conducted by the Department of Forensic Medicine will not provide further clarity on the matter, as such an examination will only show that the asylum seeker suffered an injury that may have been inflicted in the way described by him or her, although it could also have been inflicted in numerous other ways. Therefore, there is no need to postpone a decision on a case in order to wait for a medical examination, which will not in any event clarify why an asylum seeker has suffered the injuries he or she claims to be the result of torture. The State party refers to Z. v. Denmark,39 in which the Committee considered that although the State party rejected the complainant’s request to conduct a medical examination, the complainant had failed to substantiate basic elements of his claims, and therefore found that it had not been demonstrated that the authorities had failed to conduct a proper assessment of the risk of torture.40 6.4 The State party also refers to M.B. et al. v. Denmark,41 in which the Committee considered that, given that the complainant had specifically requested the Board to order a medical examination for signs of torture in order to prove his credibility, an impartial and independent assessment could have been made of whether the reason for the inconsistences in his statement were due to the torture that he had been subjected to. The State party indicates that it disagrees with this decision, as there is no obligation for the State party to conduct a medical examination every time an asylum seeker requests one, including in those cases in which the complainant has provided medical information indicating that he or she has been subjected to torture. The State party adds that the decision on whether to order a medical examination is based on an individual assessment in each case. 6.5 With respect to the complainant’s argument that he should benefit from a different standard of proof because he was subjected to torture in the past, the State party indicates that when an asylum seeker makes inconsistent statements, the Board takes into account the person’s explanations of the causes of such inconsistencies in its assessment of his or her credibility. In the case of persons who have been tortured, the Board, in practice, sets a more lenient standard of proof. However, in the complainant’s case, the Board did not accept as fact the complainant’s statement that he had been subjected to torture in Pakistan, due to the inconsistencies in crucial elements of his grounds for asylum. 6.6 Concerning the complainant’s allegations in relation to the new bill (No. 97) introduced into Parliament amending the Acts on Legal Aid and the Administration of Justice in respect of lodging and pursuing complaints with the international complaints bodies set up under human rights conventions, 42 the State party notes that the bill has no impact on the complainant’s case, as it only governs eligibility for free legal aid to submit complaints to international bodies, and reiterates that the decision to carry out a medical examination to verify signs of torture is closely related to the credibility of the asylum seeker. 6.7 With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the Immigration Service did not even ask the complainant to fill in a consent form for a medical examination, the State party notes that the Board is an independent quasi-judicial body that makes an impartial assessment of evidence. Therefore, if it had found it relevant to order such an examination, it could have asked the complainant’s consent during his hearing before it. Furthermore concerning the complainant’s allegation that the Board has only ordered two medical examinations to look for signs of torture in 2015, the State party indicates that, taking into account that the Board awarded asylum in 81 per cent of cases, in 2015, and that, in cases in which it grants refugee status, there is no need to order a medical examination, it is normal that such examinations were requested in only a few cases. 6.8 Concerning the situation of Christians in Pakistan, the State party reiterates that their situation is not such as to consider that the complainant should, if returned, be deemed to be 39 40 41 42 See communication No. 555/2013, Z. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.5. See communication No. 571/2013, M.S. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.6. See communication No. 634/2014, M.B. et al. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 25 November 2016, para. 9.6. See para. 5.6 above. 9