CAT/C/63/D/703/2015 submit that, in the present case, the risk of new torture for I.U.K. if returned to Dagestan is evident and imminent. For them, it is not merely a theoretical chance of torture but a very real possibility that I.U.K.’s arrest and torture would occur should he be returned to his country of origin after having applied for asylum in Denmark. This assertion is supported by the reports on the serious general situation in Dagestan and in the North Caucasus,19 as well as by the fact that I.U.K. has already suffered severe torture and sexual abuse 20 from the authorities, due to his association with suspected insurgents. 5.3 The complainants reiterate their position that there is medical evidence, i.e. the report of the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, to support I.U.K.’s claim that he has been tortured or ill-treated by, or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity in the past; that the torture has had after-effects; that the situation in Dagestan has not changed for the better; and that I.U.K. has engaged, although unwillingly, in political or other activity, which would appear to make him particularly vulnerable to the risk of new torture if returned to Dagestan. 5.4 The complainants also contend that there are no factual inconsistencies in their explanations, only minor differences, which are due to either I.U.K.’s mental state after the severe abuse he had suffered from the authorities in Dagestan, including post-traumatic stress disorder and memory problems, or the fact that he and R.R.K. live in a traditional North Caucasian marriage, in which it is customary that the spouses do not share every piece of information with each other. The complainants maintain that the key points of I.U.K.’s explanations have been consistent throughout his interviews, meetings and medical examination by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group. In this context, the complainants submit that, in its decision in F.K. v. Denmark,21 the Committee considered that, despite the State party’s serious concerns about credibility in that complaint, it drew an adverse conclusion regarding credibility without adequately exploring a fundamental aspect of the complainant’s claim. 5.5 The complainants submit that I.U.K.’s examination for signs of torture should have been conducted by the Department of Forensic Medicine at Copenhagen University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), which is the official medical establishment for torture investigations. As regards the State party’s argument that the Board may initiate an examination for signs of torture if it finds an asylum seeker credible, the complainants submit that such an examination is in fact necessary to prove the asylum seeker’s credibility. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 5 May 2017, the State party submitted that the complainants’ comments of 30 September 2016 did not provide any new information on their case. It therefore refers to its observations of 13 April 2016 and reiterates its arguments summarized in paragraphs 4.4– 4.7 and 4.11 above. 6.2 As regards the complainants’ submission that the Board ought to have initiated I.U.K.’s examination for signs of torture by the Department of Forensic Medicine at Rigshospitalet to substantiate his credibility, the State party observes that a new examination for signs of torture would not have contributed to elucidating the facts of the case. 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 originate from torture or whether they were caused by, for example, fights, assaults, accidents or acts of war. Moreover, a new examination for signs of torture could not ascertain the truthfulness of an explanation as to why and by whom 19 20 21 In addition to the sources already mentioned, reference is also made to the compilation entitled “General security situation and events in Dagestan” by the Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation. The complainants do not provide further information on this claim. See F.K. v. Denmark, para. 7.6. 9