military camp without any difficulty. 2.5Nuhuman drove the complainant to Colombo from where he left Sri Lanka by plane on 14 February 1997, under the name of Mohamed Alee, using a forged Sri Lankan passport. He first flew to Dubai and then to Ukraine, where he stayed for five months. On 1 August 1997, a Russian “travel agent” took him to an unknown place by truck from where he crossed a river together with five other Tamils. They were brought to a city in Poland unknown to the complainant and took a train to Berlin. On 14 August 1997, the Russian guide brought the complainant to the Netherlands where he applied for asylum and for a residence permit on 15 August 1997. The same day, he was first interviewed by an officer of the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Department (IND), who asked him about his identity and nationality, civil status, family connections, travel and other documents, the date and manner of his departure from Sri Lanka, as well as the route by which he had travelled to the Netherlands. 2.6By letter of 16 February 1998, the complainant filed an objection with IND against its failure to take a decision on his asylum application within the prescribed time limit of six months which, according to practice, constituted a denial of the application (see paragraph 4.2 below). On 7 April 1998, he lodged an appeal with the District Court in Zwolle against the failure of IND to take a timely decision on the objection. He withdrew the appeal on 4 June 1998 after IND had promised to expedite its decision, but renewed it by letter, dated 28 August 1998, because IND had not kept its promise. By decision of 18 November 1998, the district court ordered IND to decide on the complainant’s application within six weeks. 2.7On 6 October 1998, the complainant was interviewed a second time, assisted by an interpreter. In the three-hour interview, the complainant reiterated his statement, made during the first interview, that his wife was three months pregnant when he left her in June 1996, that he did not see her again after he left Killinochi, and that he was hiding during his two-month stay in Mullaitivu. As to his family situation, he stated that his father had died during a bombing raid by the Sri Lankan army and that one of his daughters had died of fever because she could not be brought to a hospital in time owing to a curfew. By letter of 1 December 1998, the complainant’s former lawyer challenged the circumstances of the second interview. At the same time, he submitted letters the complainant had received from his wife, indicating that she had given birth to a child on 21 May 1997. 2.8On 11 February 1999, the complainant was heard by an IND committee. The hearing concentrated on the contradiction between the complainant’s statement that his wife was three months pregnant when he left her in June 1996 and the fact that she gave birth to a child on 21 May 1997. At the end of the hearing, the complainant’s former lawyer told the commission that he would clarify this matter. By letter of 26 February, the lawyer informed IND that the complainant insisted that his wife had been three months pregnant in June 1996. Furthermore, he was not hiding in the strict sense of the word while staying in Mullaitivu and his wife occasionally visited him there. His wife had had a miscarriage, a fact not easily spoken about in Hindu culture especially since, in the Hindu religion, the birth of the lost child would have represented the rebirth of the complainant’s deceased mother. The complainant did not even tell his closest brother about this loss until February 1999. 2.9On 15 March 1999 and on 22 April 1999, IND asked the Medical Assessment Section (BMA) whether the complainant needed medical treatment and whether he was healthy enough to travel. On 20 May 1999, IND rejected the objection to its failure to take a timely decision on the complainant’s refugee application. At the same time, the complainant was informed that his expulsion from the Netherlands would be suspended pending receipt of medical advice by BMA. IND justified its decision by stating that: (a) the fact that the complainant is a Tamil was not by itself considered sufficient grounds to be granted asylum; (b) the contradiction in the complainant’s statements about the pregnancies of his wife and his hiding in Mullaitivu was unexplained; (c) the description of the complainant’s escape from the military hospital was implausible considering that, by his own account, he was a relatively important prisoner; and (d) there were no humanitarian grounds for allowing him to stay. IND concluded that the complainant would not be exposed to a risk of torture if he were returned to Sri Lanka and that there was no basis for applying the policy on post-traumatic stress disorder as a ground for admission, since his allegations of torture were not credible. The decision was accompanied by advice on applicable remedies, informing the complainant that his expulsion would be suspended pending appeal to court. 2.10On 16 June 1999, the complainant lodged an appeal with the district court in Zwolle against the above decision, arguing as follows: (a) IND was not justified in rejecting his explanation regarding the pregnancies of his wife; (b) his detailed description of the facts as well as visible scars on his body refuted the conclusion that his allegations of torture lacked credibility; (c) bribing soldiers was widespread in Sri Lanka and a plausible explanation for his escape from the military hospital; (d) IND had failed to take into account statements made by his brother 12 years previously in the context of his own application for asylum in the Netherlands confirming that the complainant always had problems because of his karate background; and (e) that his experience of torture was sufficiently traumatizing for the policy on post traumatic stress disorder to be applied in his case. 2.11Medical advice by BMA was given on 14 December 1999, stating that, at the time the advice was issued, the complainant suffered from a medical condition, including pain in his lower back and problems with his eyes, but that he no longer received any specific medical treatment, that he was able to travel and that no medical emergency was to be expected. 2.12By letter of 8 November 2000, IND informed the complainant that the suspension of his expulsion would be lifted. By letter of 15 November 2000, the complainant’s lawyer submitted an application for an interim injunction to the District Court of The Hague. 2.13At the request of the complainant’s lawyer, the medical examination group of the Dutch Section of Amnesty International issued a medical report on 12 June 2001, stating that the complainant has several scars on his body and cannot fully extend his index finger. While the scars on his body, especially burn marks on his left arm, a wound on his toe and a piece of dark skin near his eye, seemingly confirmed his torture allegations, the problem with the complainant’s index finger might have been caused by the alleged blows with a broken bottle. The report also states that no anatomical damage to the complainant’s back can be diagnosed but that this fact does not exclude a possible relationship between the apparent chronic back pain and the beatings the complainant allegedly suffered. Moreover, the report concludes that the psychological symptoms shown by the complainant, such as permanent suffering from his past experiences, his increased sensitivity and overanxiousness, his problems of concentration, as well as insomnia, are typical signs of a post-traumatic stress disorder.