CAT/C/63/D/703/2015 highly stressful situation prior to their departure from the Russian Federation or by the fact that they have a traditional relationship in which they do not share information with each other. Against this background, the Board found that it could not, upon an overall assessment of the statements made by the complainants in conjunction with the other information in the case, consider as established facts the complainants’ statements on their conflicts in their country of origin prior to their departure. In this regard, the Committee recalls that States parties should refrain from following a standardized credibility assessment process to determine the validity of non-refoulement claims with respect to persons alleging previous torture and other ill-treatment, and should appreciate that complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture. 30 It should be noted, however, that while these considerations should have mitigated the adverse conclusions drawn by the State party with regard to I.U.K.’s credibility, they are not applicable to the credibility concerns expressed with respect to statements made by R.R.K., I.U.K.’s spouse, who is not alleging to be a victim of torture. 8.7 The Committee also takes note of the complainants’ claim that, although I.U.K. described in detail during the asylum proceedings the abuse to which he was subjected in Dagestan prior to his arrival in Denmark, and demanded that the Board request a specialized medical examination in order to verify whether those injuries were sustained as a result of torture, the Board rejected his request for asylum on two occasions without ordering such an examination and despite the report of the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, attesting that “overall, [I.U.K.’s] physical and psychological symptoms and the objective findings made are fully consistent with consequences of the alleged torture”. It also notes the State party’s argument that a new examination for signs of torture would not have contributed to elucidating the facts of the case, and that even if a new examination were to provide the same findings as those set out in the report made by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, it would not necessarily clarify whether I.U.K.’s injuries originated from torture or whether they were caused by, for example, fights, assaults, accidents or acts of war. Moreover, the State party notes that a new examination for signs of torture could not ascertain the truthfulness of an explanation why and by whom I.U.K. was subjected to abuse. 8.8 In this regard, the Committee observes that, in principle and regardless of the asylum authorities’ assessment of the credibility of a person alleging previous torture, he or she should be referred by the asylum authorities to an independent medical examination free of charge, in accordance with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol),31 so that the authorities deciding on a given case of forcible return are able to complete the assessment of the risk of torture objectively and without any reasonable doubt, on the basis of the results of that medical examination. The Committee observes, however, that, both in the present complaint and in their submissions to the Danish asylum authorities, the complainants have failed to explain how or why an examination of I.U.K. for signs of torture by the Department of Forensic Medicine at Rigshospitalet might have led to a different assessment of their asylum application. In these circumstances, the Committee does not consider the denial of an independent medical examination to have directly resulted in the State party’s adverse conclusion concerning the complainants’ credibility. 32 8.9 The Committee also observes that, even if it were to set aside the inconsistencies in the complainants’ account of their past experiences in the Russian Federation and accept their statements as true, the complainants have not provided any evidence that the authorities in Dagestan have been looking for I.U.K. in the recent past or have been otherwise interested in him. The Committee recalls in this connection that ill-treatment suffered in the past is only one element to be taken into account, the relevant question before the Committee being whether the complainant in question currently runs a risk of torture if returned to the Russian Federation. 33 The Committee notes that there are reports of 30 31 32 33 12 General comment No. 4, para. 42. Ibid, paras. 18 (d) and 41. See, M.B. et al. v. Denmark, para. 9.6. See, for example, X, Y and Z v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/61/1996), para. 11.2; G.B.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/49/D/435/2010), para. 7.7; and S.S.B. v. Denmark (CAT/C/60/D/602/2014), para. 8.7.