CAT/C/55/D/571/2013 the complainant because, whatever its outcome, the examination could not serve to prove that the complainant had been subjected to abuse by the Taliban. Furthermore, the complainant has not demonstrated that he would be unable to obtain the protection of the Afghan authorities. Consequently, the State party finds that the complainant will not be at real risk of persecution as set out in section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act or of abuse under section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act if he were returned to his country of origin. 4.19 The State party maintains that the Appeals Board took into account all relevant information in its decisions and that the submission of the communication to the Committee has not brought to light any information to substantiate that the complainant would risk being subjected to torture if returned to Afghanistan. It therefore relies on the findings of the Appeals Board and refers to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the inconsistent statements made by the complainant and his spouse. The State party concludes that it will not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention to return the complainant to Afghanistan. 4.20 Finally, the State party requests the Committee to review its request for interim measures as the complainant has failed to substantiate that he would be at risk of suffering irreparable harm if returned to Afghanistan. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 20 August 2014, the complainant reiterated his claim that the State party will breach its obligations under article 3 of the Convention if he is forcibly removed from the State party. 5.2 The complainant emphasizes the importance of the credibility assessment in the asylum procedure, especially in the light of the paucity of documentary and other evidence confirming or supporting the applicant’s statements. The complexity of the credibility assessment is partly linked to the multilingual and cross-cultural communication which could exacerbate the scope for misunderstandings and errors and refers to a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees report16, which states that “factors such as the working of the human memory, the psychology of the applicant, and his or her experience of traumatic events also have an impact and need to be understood,” and that “the repetitive nature of the task and the routine exposure to accounts of trauma and ill-treatment […] may lead to casehardening and credibility fatigue”. He also refers to other studies on the complexity of credibility assessment in the asylum procedure. In the complainant’s view, the Danish asylum process, notwithstanding the thorough personal interview and adequate legal safeguards, is not exempt from the above-mentioned challenges, therefore the statements made by the complainant and his spouse as well as the credibility assessment made by the Danish authorities should be considered in the light of those challenges. 5.3 The complainant describes the nature of the four procedural steps of the Danish asylum process: registration, application, asylum interview and appeal hearing. Regarding the finding by the majority of the members of the Appeals Board of the lack of credibility and the inconsistency of the complainant and his spouse’s statements, the complainant emphasizes that he is illiterate and his spouse received three years of tuition by her uncle. He highlights that illiteracy and lack of formal education can affect asylum seekers’ ability to articulate the reasons for their asylum applications and to respond to questions posed by the authorities and that inconsistency in statements is not necessarily indicative of lack of 16 See UNHCR, Beyond proof: credibility assessment in EU asylum systems, May 2013, p. 11. 11