CAT/C/57/D/628/2014 evidence, including background information on the respective country of origin. Background reports are obtained from various sources, including the Danish Refugee Council, other Governments, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 4.4 In the light of the above, the State party notes that an asylum seeker must provide all required information in order to be able to decide whether he or she falls within section 7 of the Aliens Act. It is thus incumbent upon an asylum seeker to substantiate that the conditions for granting asylum are met. The Board may also hear from witnesses. If an asylum seeker’s statements throughout the proceedings appear coherent and consistent, the Board will normally consider them as fact; if the statements are inconsistent, the Board will seek clarifications. However, inconsistent statements about crucial parts of an asylum seeker’s grounds for seeking asylum may weaken his or her credibility. In line with the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, the Refugee Appeals Board will generally be less demanding when it comes to the burden of proof in cases involving minor asylum seekers or asylum seekers with a mental disorder or impairment. In addition, if there are doubts as to the credibility of an asylum seeker’s story, the Board will always assess to what extent the principle of the benefit of the doubt could be applied. 4.5 The State party further notes that article 1 (A) of the 1951 Convention does not list torture as one of the grounds warranting asylum; however, the fact that an asylum seeker has been subjected to torture or similar ill-treatment in his country of origin may be essential in the assessment of whether the conditions for granting him or her residence under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act are met. In this regard, the State party notes that, according to the case law of the Refugee Appeals Board, the conditions for granting asylum or protection status cannot be considered to be satisfied in all cases in which an asylum seeker has been subjected to torture in his country of origin. This approach is also supported by the practice of the Committee. 1 When the Refugee Appeals Board considers it as fact that an asylum seeker has been subjected to torture and risks being subjected to torture in connection with persecution for reasons falling within the 1951 Convention in the event of return to his country of origin, the Board will grant residence under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act (Convention status). In addition, the Board will find that the conditions for granting residence under section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act (protection status) are met if specific and individual factors render it probable that the asylum seeker would be at a real risk of being subjected to torture in the event of return to his or her country of origin. 4.6 When torture is invoked as one of the grounds for asylum, the Board may sometimes find it necessary to obtain further details in that regard. As part of the appeals procedure, the Board may, for example, order an examination of an asylum seeker for signs of torture. The Board normally does not order an examination if an asylum seeker’s story lacked credibility throughout the proceedings and the Board had to reject a claim of torture in its entirety. In this regard, the State party refers to the Committee’s decision in Milo Otman v. Denmark,2 in which the complainant’s statements on torture and the medical information provided were set aside due to the complainant’s general lack of credibility. The State party also refers to Nicmeddin Alp v. Denmark,3 in which the Committee noted that the State party’s authorities had thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainant even though the authorities did not consider it necessary to order a medical examination, as 1 2 3 4 The State party refers to communications No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 22 November 2006; and No. 466/2011 Nicmeddin Alp v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 May 2014. See communication No. 209/2002, M. O. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 12 November 2003, paras. 6.4-6.6. Nicmeddin Alp v. Denmark.