CAT/C/63/D/703/2015 Amnesty International Danish Medical Group concerning F.K. had not been available at the time when F.K.’s appeal had been heard by the Board on 30 August 2013, and consequently it was not included in the decision of the Board refusing asylum to F.K. 4.12 The State party observes that in the present case, as in all other cases, the Board made an overall assessment of the complainants’ situation compared with the background information on the Russian Federation, including Dagestan, 14 available to it. The Board found that, despite the background information available, the complainants would not be at a specific and individual risk of abuse falling within article 3 of the Convention. 15 The State party agrees with the Board’s assessment. 4.13 Furthermore, the State party maintains that the Board has taken into account all the relevant information in its decisions and that the complainants have not presented any new information to the Committee. The State party refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in R.C. v. Sweden, in which the Court considered that, “as a general principle, the national authorities are best placed to assess not just the facts but, more particularly, the credibility of witnesses since it is they who have had an opportunity to see, hear and assess the demeanour of the individual concerned”. 16 The State party considers that the complainants are trying to use the Committee as an appellate body and that their complaint merely reflects the fact that they disagree with the assessment of their credibility made by the Board. It also indicates that the complainants failed to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board had failed to take properly into account. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which it is for the States parties to examine the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which the evidence was evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 17 Thus, in the State party’s view there is no basis for doubting, let alone setting aside, the Board’s assessment, according to which the complainants have failed to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that I.U.K. would risk abuse contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon the complainants’ return to the Russian Federation. 4.14 Lastly, the State party wishes to draw attention to the statistics on the case law of the Danish immigration authorities, which show, among other things, the recognition rates for asylum claims from the 10 largest national groups of asylum seekers decided by the Board between 2013 and 2015. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 30 September 2016, the complainants submitted their comments on the State party’s observations, arguing that they did establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of their complaint under article 3 of the Convention. They refer in particular to I.U.K.’s detailed description of torture to which he was subjected to in Dagestan, which was presented by the complainants to the Board, as well as to the findings of the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group’s report, confirming that I.U.K.’s physical and psychological symptoms were fully consistent with the consequences of the alleged torture. They add that a person who has been exposed to a similar degree of persecution to that of I.U.K. will experience serious difficulties if returned to Dagestan, since there is a high risk that the authorities will subject him to repeated interrogation, accompanied by torture. 5.2 The complainants refer to the Committee’s decision in F.K. v. Denmark,18 according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, but that the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. They 14 15 16 17 18 8 Reference is made to Human Rights Watch, “Invisible War”. Reference is made to Z. v. Denmark, para. 7.2; and M.S. v. Denmark, para. 7.3. See, European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden (application No. 41827/07), judgment of 9 March 2010, para. 52. The State party also refers to the European Court of Human Rights, M.E. v. Denmark (application No. 58363/10), judgment of 8 July 2014, para. 63; and M.E. v. Sweden (application No. 71398/12), judgment of 26 June 2014, para. 78. See A.K. v. Australia (CAT/C/32/D/148/1999), para. 6.4; and S.P.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/32/D/282/2005), para. 7.6. See F.K. v. Denmark, para. 7.3.