CAT/C/64/D/693/2015 country of origin at the time of return.11 The Board also takes into account information on whether systematic, gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations take place in the country of origin. 4.5 The fact that an asylum seeker has been subjected to torture or ill-treatment in his country of origin may be an essential point in the assessment made by the Board of whether the conditions required under the Aliens Act are met. However, according to the Board’s case law, the conditions for granting asylum are not satisfied in all cases where an asylum seeker has been subjected to torture in his country of origin. 12 The State party observes that, even if it were assumed that the complainant had been detained and tortured in his country of origin in the past, it does not automatically follow that he would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin. 13 4.6 Regarding the complainant’s allegation related to the Danish authorities’ refusal to conduct a medical examination for signs of torture, the State party indicates that when torture is invoked as grounds for asylum, the Board may order such an examination, but that this decision is only taken during the Board’s hearing, as the assessment of the need for a medical examination depends on the asylum seeker’s statements, in particular his or her credibility. The Board generally does not order an examination for signs of torture when the asylum seeker has lacked credibility during the asylum proceedings. Even if the Board considers it proved that the asylum seeker has previously been subjected to torture, if it finds that there is no real risk of torture upon return at present, it does not order a medical examination.14 The State party also refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Cruz Varas v. Sweden, 15 in which the Court found that despite the medical evidence provided by the applicant, substantial grounds had not been shown for believing that the applicant’s expulsion would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment upon return to his country of origin, due to the inconsistencies in his statement during his asylum proceedings. The State party therefore considers that, as decided by the Board, there was no need to conduct a medical examination in the present case, taking into account the lack of credibility of the complainant. 4.7 As regards the examination of the complainant by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group for signs of torture, the State party indicates that it was taken into account by the Board in its determination of the appeal on 17 September 2015. It also observes that the results of the medical examination cannot lead to a different assessment of the credibility of the complainant’s statement on his grounds for asylum. 4.8 The State party notes the complainant’s assertion, that after having left Denmark in 2013 he stayed in Greece and subsequently re-entered Afghanistan and took up residence in the area where S. used to live, does not substantiate the complainant’s claim of his fear of S. It also does not match with his earlier statement to the effect that S. was a very powerful 11 12 13 14 15 The State party refers to X, Y and Z v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/61/1996), in which the Committee noted that past torture is one of the elements to be taken into account by the Committee when examining a claim concerning article 3 of the Convention, but that the aim of the Committee’s examination of the communication was to find whether the authors would risk being subjected to torture now, if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It also refers to M.C.M.V.F. v. Sweden (CAT/C/35/D/237/2003), in which the Committee took into account the change of situation in the country of origin of the complainant, El Salvador, where the armed conflict had ceased 10 years before the complaint was brought to the Committee. The State party refers to N.Z.S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/37/D/277/2005), in which the Committee considered that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Ibid. In this connection, the State party refers to M.O. v. Denmark (CAT/C/31/D/209/2002), in which the Committee considered that there had not been a violation of the Convention due to the complainant’s lack of credibility, despite his statement that he had been subjected to torture and medical evidence in support of that claim. See also Nicmeddin Alp v. Denmark (CAT/C/52/D/466/2011). Application No. 15576/89, judgment of 20 March 1991, paras. 77–82. 5