CAT/C/63/D/703/2015 Board did not consider the complainants’ statements on their conflicts in the Russian Federation prior to their departure to be established facts. The State party recalls in this respect that the Board does not initiate an examination for signs of torture in cases in which it has been unable to find as established facts the complainant’s grounds for asylum. The Board therefore found no basis for initiating I.U.K.’s examination for signs of torture. The State party agrees with the Board’s assessment that there was no need for initiating such examination and additionally observes that the complaint to the Committee includes no information that can lead to a different assessment of the case. 4.9 As regards I.U.K.’s examination for signs of torture conducted by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group in April 2015, which was also taken into account by the Board in its decision of 27 August 2015, the State party observes that the following appears in the report about the objective findings: “The examination found, inter alia, abnormal alterations on the root of the nose and skin alterations on the nose, a small scar on the left upper lip and on the right shoulder, as well as missing upper and lower teeth. According to the person examined, all the injuries stemmed from the torture. Further, a number of scars were found on both legs and below the right ribcage as well as skin alterations and an abnormality equivalent to the left jawbone. According to the information provided, these changes did not relate to the torture. [I.U.K.] scored 2.75/4 on psychological symptoms. Scores above 2.5/4 indicate post-traumatic stress disorder … which is typically seen in persons exposed to severe stress, including acts of war and torture. Overall, [I.U.K.]’s physical and psychological symptoms and the objective findings made are fully consistent with consequences of the alleged torture.” 4.10 The State party submits that, in its decision of 27 August 2015 refusing to reopen the asylum proceedings, the Board stated, inter alia, that the examination for signs of torture conducted by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group could not lead to a different assessment of the credibility of the complainants’ statements. In this respect, the Board found that the fact that it appeared from the examination that the physical and psychological symptoms and objective findings were consistent with the torture described by I.U.K. did not imply that he had been subjected to the physical and/or psychological abuse described by him. Accordingly, based on an overall assessment of the information on file, including the report made by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, the Board still found that the complainants had failed to render probable the grounds for asylum relied on by them, including that I.U.K. was detained and subjected to torture at the end of September 2013 by persons in balaclavas wearing military uniforms as stated by him. The State party agrees with the Board that the examination for signs of torture conducted by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group cannot lead to a different assessment of the credibility of the complainants’ statements on their grounds for asylum. 11 4.11 The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence 12 relating to cases in which the Board could not accept an asylum seeker’s statement on his grounds for asylum as an established fact and submits that it is aware of the Committee’s decision in F.K. v. Denmark,13 in which the Committee considered that, by rejecting the complainant’s asylum application without ordering a medical examination, the State party failed to sufficiently investigate whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin. The State party further submits that the above-mentioned decision does not imply a general obligation to conduct an examination for signs of torture in cases in which an asylum seeker’s statement on his or her grounds for asylum cannot be considered an established fact because his or her statement is deemed to lack credibility. Accordingly, the reasoning given in F.K. v. Denmark is very specific. The State party observes in this respect that F.K. v. Denmark differs from the case at hand in that the Board explicitly took into account the report made by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group in its decision of 27 August 2015 refusing to reopen the asylum proceedings, whereas the report made by the 11 12 13 Reference is made to the European Court of Human Rights, Varas and others v. Sweden (application No. 15576/89), judgment of 20 March 1991, paras. 77–82; and M.O. v. Denmark, paras. 6.4–6.6. Reference is made to Z. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/555/2013), para. 7.5; and M.S. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/571/2013), para. 7.6. See, F.K. v. Denmark (CAT/C/56/D/580/2014), para. 7.6. 7