Migratieweb ve15002236 Advance unedited version CAT/C/56/D/569/2013 4.2 On 8 July 2010, the complainant gave an additional interview. These interviews were held' with the participation of an interpreter, and the complainant was given an oppo~nity to submit written additions. On 9 September 2010, the government issued a notice of intent to deny the asylum application. On 7 October 2010, the complainant submitted his comments to thls notice. The asylum application was nevertheless rej ected on 25 October 2010. 4.3 The State party submits that on 18 November 2010, the complainant applied for judicial review of this decision. By judgment of the full-bench chamber 'of the Hague district court, sitting in Zwolle, the application for judicial review was declared unfounded. The complainant then appealed this judgment to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division declared. the application manifestly ill- founded. 6 4:4 On 26' April 2012, the complainant submitted a new application for a temporary asylum. Thls application was .rejectedby the IND's decision of 10 May 2012. On 11 May 2012, the complainant applied to the Hague ,district court, whlch rejected the application on 24 September 20J2, declaring it "unfounded." The complainant did not appeal against this decision. 4.5 Regarding the claims that were made by the complainant in the framework of the present case, the State party submits that although the huinan rights s1tuation in Guinea gives a concern, according to various sources, 7 the deportation will not lead to violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.6 The State· party sub mits that it "exercised due care" during the asylum procedure. According to section 31, subsection 1, of the Aliens Act 2000, the applicant is required to supply all information, including relevant documents, on the basis of which, it can be decided whether sufficient grounds exist to grant asylurn. The asylum procedure gives an opportunity fer the applicant to prove the veracity of his testimony: onl)' credible accounts are considered during the assessment. 4.7 The State party considers that the complainant's account in support of his asylum application is not credible. Even if the statements were to be considered credible, the complainant has not shown that hls return to Guinea would result in violationof article 3 by the' State party. In providing the details in support' of his application, the State party considers that the complainimthas been insufficiently cooperative. He has not submitted a single document to establish hls nationality, identity, or travel route. He has also failed to produce any documents that would allow him to travel. These circumstances undermine the credibilityofthe complainant ' 4.8 In addition, the complainant made very cursory statements about the death of his parents. He cannot say when his father died, not.even by approximation. He also cannot say who attended hls funeral in 2005. It is also unlikely that he spent three days in hospital after being beaten up by his uncle since he cannot say what medication he was given there and what physical complaints he had. The complainant also failed to provide details of hls trip to Conakry after he was disch~rged from the hospital. '6 7 The State party submits that that the Adrninistrative Jurisdiction Division rnay sirnply confine itself, to stating that the application is "nianifestly ill-founded",without providing further explanations. The State party refers to the following reports: US State Department: Country Report on Hurnan Rights Practices 2013 - Guinea of27 February 2014; Hurnan Rights Watch: World Report 2014Guinea of21 January 2914; Amnesty International Report 2013 - the State ofthe World's Hurnan Rights - Guinea and the Country Report on Guinea by the Dutch Minister ofForeign Mfairs of28 March 2013. 5 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl