CAT/C/63/D/719/2015 that high-level corruption remains a problem in Armenia. Whistle-blowers do not receive protection, and anti-corruption organizations have warned that government officials continually ignore reports of corruption. In this context, it is particularly important to remember that Mr. Abrahamyan is still the Deputy Chair of the Republican Party of Armenia and was, until recently, the Prime Minister of the country. Mr. Abrahamyan is considered to be a very powerful person with great influence who is not afraid to use his power in order to achieve his goals. The fact that Mr. Abrahamyan is in a powerful position, and the harmful information H.A. has at her disposal, leave the complainants at a personal and present risk of treatment incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. 7.5 The counsel submits that the complainants have given a likely and logical explanation for their actions subsequent to the events of February and March 2008. In accordance with the established case law of the Committee, the authorities are under the obligation to verify the facts, which are sufficiently detailed. 21 Counsel submits that the State party failed to verify the facts of the asylum account, even though the complainants provided clear indications of the risks and information on the persons from whom they feared retribution. The lack of a rigorous examination of the asylum claim is all the more unacceptable since some of the facts have been accepted by the parties concerned. 7.6 With regard to medical evidence, counsel notes that the State party failed to take into account the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights and Medical report of 15 April 2014 when assessing the credibility of the complainants’ asylum claims. He refers to the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, which deems that an excessively restrictive approach to the consideration of whether there are new elements in the second asylum procedure fails to meet the standard of careful and rigorous examination required to ensure effective protection against a risk of a violation of article 3. 22 The counsel notes the Institute’s conclusion that mental problems explain discrepancies in the account of H.A., the inconsistent recall of details of torture and detention, and the late disclosure of sexual violence, a particularly shaming form of torture. Scientific research shows that torture victims recall more and different details of painful traumatic experiences after repeated interviewing. In the Institute’s report, it is noted that H.A. was interviewed only 23 days after giving birth to her son, an event that may have affected her level of concentration and memory. 7.7 In the light of the above-mentioned explanation and substantiation of some essential elements of the medical aspects of the present case, the counsel for the complainants submits that the arguments of the State party cannot be sustained. The mere fact that some parts of the asylum account have been deemed credible, in conjunction with the lack of rigorous scrutiny by the State party’s authorities, and H.A.’s state of mental health as described in the Institute’s report, should lead to the conclusion that substantial grounds exist for believing that the complainants will be exposed to torture if returned to the country of origin. Additional observations by the State party 8.1 On 4 May 2017, the State party submitted additional observations on admissibility and the merits of the case. It reiterated that the complaint is inadmissible due to the complainants’ failure to exhaust all available domestic remedies. The complainants had the opportunity to lodge an appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, and to apply for a provisional measure to prevent their expulsion pending appeal. The State party disagrees with the complainants’ position that an appeal to the Division is not a remedy that needs to be exhausted since it does not have an automatic suspensive effect. Although there is no statutory obligation to suspend expulsion while an appeal is pending before the Division, the Division’s case law in effect provides a legal guarantee that, when an alien has applied for a provisional measure to prevent expulsion, he or she will not be expelled before the Division’s President has rendered a judgment on that application. An appeal to the Division is, therefore, a domestic remedy that can bring 21 22 See A.S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/25/D/149/1999), para. 8.6. See the European Court of Human Rights decision in M.D. and M.A. v. Belgium (application no. 58689/12), judgment of 19 January 2016, and para. 64. 9