Migratieweb ve15002236 CAT/C/56/D/569/2013 Advance unedited version 4.9 The State party further submits that the complainant failed to provide details about his stay in èonakry. The. complainant doesn't remember any hotels, shops, banks near the house where he· allegedly stayed. This also throws into doubt his account regarding problems he says he encountered in Conakry. 4.10 The State, party further submits that it doubts that the complainant took part in the events of 28 September 2009 as he cimnot specify when he went to the stadium, or how long he wa,s there, and he provides very few details about what happened at the stadium after'the soldiers entered. During the 8 July 2010 interview, for example, the complainant stated that "nothing noteworthy" happened when the 'military entered the' stadium. This account is inconsistent with previously mentioned reports by the Human Rights Watch and the Amnesty International. According to these organizations, shots were fired, which caused great commotion in the stadium. 4.11 While the complaitlant statedthat he was imprisoned for five months, he doesn't remember names or description of his cellmates, or cannot describe the prison itself, and how he was able to escape. The State party, further considers that the complainant concocted a story with a captain who helped hiin escape from the prison. 4.12 Regarding the medical evidence, the State party sub mits that the report dated 14 September 2011 by the Amnesty International Medical Examination Group and the letter fromthe Institute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment dated 12 December .2012 do not lend credibility to the complainant's account. . 4.13 The judgment ofthe Administrative Jurisdiction Division of 19 February 2014 sets out how corroborating medical evidence is taken into account in asylum procedures. If the corroborating ,medical evidence strongly indicates that the alleged inhuman treatment was the cause of the alleged injuries, the State party may be obliged to carry out a further investigation into evidence in order to remove any doubt. Regarding the medical evidence submitted by the author, the State party submits that ~t does not warrant a further investigation. 4.14 The State party considers that the account of facts and events in the medical reports reveals further discrepancies with the complainant's account of facts duringthe asylum interviews. For example, the qomplamant failedto mention during the asylum interviews that he was subjected to electric shocks, orthat he was questioned while he was in "tiger crawl position". Further, the Amnesty International report leaves open the possibility that the scars on the complainant were sustained differently from the way described by the complainant. 4.15 The State party further submits that it is not c1ear whether "due care has been exercised,in reaching the conclusions in the medical'report". The Amnesty International's report seems to have accepted the complainant's statements as facts, and there·is nothing to show that this report is based on any "objective data." The complainant's comments on the State party's observationson admissibility and merits 5.1 In reply to the State party's obsen:.ations, on 12 August 2014, the complainant sub mits that the State party does not have enough reasons to doubt his credibility. The State party failed to consider the fact that the complainant suffered from a post-traUinatic stress disorder as a re sult ofhis traumatic experience while in detention. 5.2 The State party, for example, refers to several contradictions in his account of facts and events. Some of the contradictions are easily explalned. For example, during his father' s death, the complainant was very young, even before he went to school. At the time ofhis mother's death, he was only 12 years old. 6 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl