CAT/C/63/D/719/2015 the applicable domestic law and policy. Referring to the Aliens Act of 2000, it asserts that if an applicant is unable to submit travel, identification or other documents required in support of his or her asylum application, the examination of his or her application will take this circumstance into account, unless he or she can establish satisfactorily that the absence of these documents is not attributable to him or her. The State party emphasizes, however, that an application for a temporary asylum residence permit cannot be denied on the sole ground that the alien has not produced any documents, or has produced false or forged documents. Only if it is established that this fact can be attributed to the alien, will the credibility of his or her statements be impaired. In these circumstances, the alien bears an elevated burden of proof to establish the plausibility of his or her asylum application. The alien must supply all the information, including relevant documents, on the basis of which it can be decided whether legal grounds exist for granting him or her a residence permit. The above-mentioned system of statutory provisions thus places upon the asylum seeker the burden of proof to establish the validity of his or her account and gives an opportunity to demonstrate the veracity of his or her account by means of statements, if he or she is unable to produce documents for this purpose. 6.2 With regard to available legal remedies, the State party submits that an alien may apply to The Hague District Court for judicial review of a decision rejecting his or her asylum application. In principle, in the case of a first application for asylum, an alien may await the result of the application for review in the Netherlands. Appeals against the District Court’s judgments are submitted to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. Under Section 53 of the Council of State Act, the Division may either uphold the District Court’s judgment or reverse it in whole or in part. Under Section 91 (2) of the Aliens Act of 2000, the Division may uphold the District Court’s judgment without giving reasons if it holds that the arguments presented on appeal are insufficient to warrant the quashing of the judgment. In contrast to an alien applying to the District Court for review in his first procedure, an alien who makes a subsequent asylum application, or who has lodged an appeal with the Division, may not, in principle, await the decision in the Netherlands. However, he or she may lodge an objection to his or her actual expulsion, including on the grounds that it would be contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or apply to the courts for an injunction so that he or she cannot be expelled from the Netherlands pending the outcome of the decision on his or her notice of objection. 6.3 With regards to the assessment of supporting medical evidence in the asylum procedure, the State party notes that, if such evidence provides strong indications that the alleged inhuman treatment in the country of origin caused the injury suffered by the asylum seeker, the Government may be required to further investigate the medical evidence. This is in order to eliminate any doubt about the risk of the asylum seeker being exposed to treatment incompatible with article 3 of the Convention if expelled to the country in question. The issue of whether the medical evidence obliges the Government to carry out further investigations depends, in the first place, on the credibility of the asylum seeker’s account of the inhuman treatment suffered, viewed in the light of the general situation in the country concerned.14 An obligation to carry out further investigations may, however, also arise when other parts of the account lack credibility. In such cases, the authorities must consider whether: (a) significant scarring or injuries are present; (b) the scarring corresponds to credible statements; (c) general sources show that asylum seekers who return are examined for scars by the local authorities; (d) other evidentiary material has been submitted that substantiates the claim that there is a risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 6.4 Concerning the events of 2008 in Armenia, the State party submits that, according to various country reports and other background information, 15 the first round of the 14 15 See, inter alia, European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden (application no. 41827/07), judgment of 9 March 2010, paras. 53–56; D.N.W. v. Sweden (application no. 29946/10), judgment of 6 December 2012, paras. 41–44. See Ministry of Foreign Affairs country reports on Armenia of 24 October 2013, 10 February 2012, 2 August 2010 and 23 January 2009. Available respectively at www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/ambtsberichten/2013/10/24/armenie-2013-10-24 (in Dutch), www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/ambtsberichten/2012/02/13/armenie-2012-02-10 (in Dutch), 5