CAT/C/63/D/719/2015 asylum procedure. The State party observes that it is unclear whether the conclusions in the medical report were arrived at with all due care, as H.A.’s statements were considered as a whole and appear to have been taken as established. It has not been established that the conclusions contained in the Institute’s report were based on objective information that could be corroborated. The State party observes that the Institute’s report did not concern G.H. 6.11 Finally, the State party observes that not only has a significant period of time elapsed since the events in question, but also that Mr. Pashinyan surrendered voluntarily to the police on 1 June 2009, was subsequently tried, sentenced and released in 2011 under general amnesty. There is nothing to show that he experienced serious problems thereafter, either from the authorities or Mr. Abrahamyan. Furthermore, Mr. Pashinyan is now a member of the National Assembly. In view of these developments, seen in the light of general information to the effect that persons involved in the disturbances in February and March 2008 are no longer in any danger, there are no grounds at all for presuming that the complainants are likely to attract adverse attention from the Armenian authorities or from Mr. Abrahamyan and his supporters. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In his submission of 22 December 2016, the counsel for the complainants refers to his earlier submission of 26 February 2016, and reiterates his position with regard to the admissibility of the complaint. He also refers to a recent decision by the Council of State, the highest judicial body in asylum cases in the Netherlands, which broadened its scope in expulsion cases of asylum seekers and called upon the legislator to change the law in order to comply with article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to an effective remedy.20 7.2 With regard to the existence of a personal and present risk, the counsel for the complainants emphasizes that, according to paragraph 8 of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, past experiences of human rights violations, in particular torture and other forms of ill-treatment, are highly relevant for establishing the existence of a real risk. The counsel submits that the Committee’s approach differs from that taken by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of S v. France, therefore, the State party’s arguments in that regard are not relevant in the present case. He further submits that, since the State party deems it to be credible that H.A. was ill-treated as a consequence of her refusal to inject people with an unknown fluid, these past experiences of torture or ill-treatment are a strong indication of a possible risk of torture upon return to Armenia. 7.3 The Council also notes that the credibility assessment of asylum seekers has been substantially altered since 1 January 2015 to bring it into line with European Union legislation. Credibility is no longer assessed on the basis of the so-called positive credibility test, which assumed an elevated burden of proof from the outset, but rather on an integral credibility assessment. The basic assumption of the new assessment is that all relevant circumstances of the case are considered and weighed. Under the new policy, the deciding authorities are, in each case, required to substantiate how the elements that have a negative impact on the asylum account influence the credibility assessment. This is particularly relevant for the assessment of second asylum applications, which were previously denied on the basis of the old positive credibility assessment. A second asylum application bringing forward new facts and circumstances should be considered to be an application with an altered set of facts and to be independent from the first application. The deciding authorities cannot, therefore, limit themselves to simply referring to the conclusions regarding the first application. 7.4 The counsel for the complainants further notes that the human rights situation in the country of origin is a relevant factor and must be taken into account. Furthermore, information on the country of origin from various sources consistently highlights the fact 20 8 See Administrative Jurisdiction Division, judgment No. 201609138/3/V2, 20 December 2016 (in Dutch).