CCPR/C/122/D/2642/2015 indicates that he cannot comment on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ memorandum dated 30 August 2013 as he has never had access to it. 5.7 He adds that the Board’s decision of 12 February 2016, which dismissed the documents submitted by him on 10 December 2015,22 is wrong because it is not possible to reject such documents as false on the basis of aspects such as “their appearance”. Moreover, the fact that the Board rejected those documents because the author had previously submitted documents not deemed genuine is unacceptable as it seems to conclude that a person who once submitted documents not deemed genuine cannot ever produce an authentic document. As per the State party’s reference to the report by Landinfo, according to which it is easy to obtain false documents in Bangladesh, the author states that such affirmation is not sufficient to conclude that his documents are false. In the author’s view, the Board has based its decision on the appearance of the documents, rather than on any evidence or well-documented facts. Further submissions by the State party 6.1 On 2 December 2016, the State party provided further observations. It reiterates that the author has not provided any new information on his initial grounds for asylum. Regarding the author’s claim that he has difficulty concentrating and putting events in chronological order owing to trauma, the State party submits that the Board is aware that persons who have been subjected to torture or abuse cannot be expected to give a precise and coherent account of all details of an asylum case. However, in the present case, the author gave inaccurate and inconsistent statements, as well as evasive answers to specific questions. Additionally, the author provides statements to the Committee that are inconsistent with those he made during his asylum proceedings. The State party therefore reiterates that it endorses the findings referred to by the Board in its decision of 7 January 2014. 6.2 The State party further notes that, during the asylum proceedings, the author was given the opportunity to explain the inconsistencies in his accounts. In addition, during his hearing before the Board, the author was asked elaborative questions on the inconsistencies in his statements. The State party concludes that the author’s allegation that he could not give precise statements owing to the trauma he had suffered cannot lead to a different evaluation of his credibility. 6.3 Regarding the author’s allegations in relation to the method of interviewing and the interpretation services during the asylum proceedings, the State party indicates that the author never mentioned any problems in that regard before the domestic authorities or in his initial complaint to the Committee. The State party notes that the author signed the reports dated 8 November 2011 and 25 June 2012 after they were read out to him. The latter report expressly indicates that the author did not have any problems understanding the interpreter. Throughout the asylum proceedings, the author was advised about the importance of giving as detailed and correct information as possible, and pointing out any problems he might face in understanding the interpreter. Therefore, the State party considers that the author has not rendered probable that any significant misunderstandings occurred during his asylum proceedings owing to the interpretation provided or similar reasons. 6.4 The State party reiterates that, according to background information on the human rights situation in Bangladesh, including the reports quoted by the author, the author has failed to render probable that he would risk any abuse by the Bangladeshi authorities or by the Jamaat-e-Islami upon return, as he had a low profile in the organization and only demonstrated that he was a sympathizer of the Jamaat-e-Islami. 22 See para. 2.12. 9