CCPR/C/117/D/2443/2014 whether such a risk exists.18 In the instant case, the Committee observes that the Danish Immigration Service refused the author’s asylum request, that the author appealed that decision and that the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the former decision. The Committee notes that, in examining the author’s asylum request, the Board reviewed the author’s allegations making a specific and individual risk assessment, taking into due consideration reports containing information concerning the situation of Chechens in the Russian Federation. 9.6 It further notes the Refugee Appeals Board’s assessment that the situation of the author’s son (who was granted asylum in 2010 owing to his conflict with the authorities between 1999 and early 2010 and who has not been an active insurgent since then) does not in itself form a basis for granting asylum to the author; that the fact that the author has been contacted by the authorities because of her son’s situation does not form a basis for granting asylum to the author; that the author’s son left the country in February 2010 and that the author was subsequently contacted by the authorities several times to ask for her son’s whereabouts without, however, exposing her to abuse on those occasions; that the author’s son was not a high-profile member of a Chechen rebel group and that the author does not belong to a group at particularly high risk of being abused by the Chechen authorities should she return to her home region; and that she moved to Ingushetia after her son’s departure because she was tired of being contacted by the authorities, she then moved back to Chechnya because she preferred to go home and she stayed there even though the authorities continued to contact her at home and inquire about her son. 9.7 The Committee notes that the author has not been politically active herself but appears to be a very low-profile individual; she had no connection to the Chechen rebels, according to the information submitted by her, nor had she come into any conflict because of her son’s circumstances. The Committee notes the State party’s assessment that it appears unconvincing that the author would have become a person of interest to the authorities merely for having sold bread outside her home to passers-by whose identity was unknown to her, whereas the episode with the arrest and torture in detention could not be accepted as fact because the events described, when seen in isolation, appear unlikely and in view of the information provided by the author on her personal circumstances, and the background information; the author’s statement about her escape from a hospital to which she had been taken after having been tortured and consequently having suffered a heart attack also appeared to lack credibility. The Committee notes that the Board could not attach evidentiary importance to the documents provided by the author because, based on their contents and the time of their submission, and being undated, they appeared fabricated for the occasion. 9.8 The Committee notes that the Refugee Appeals Board normally does not order an examination for signs of torture when an asylum seeker has appeared not credible and that the Board therefore rejects the asylum seeker’s statement about torture in its entirety. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the author’s medical records did not indicate that she had been tortured but that she had trouble sleeping, suffered from nightmares and headaches, was worried and wanted to see a psychologist. The author challenges the assessment of evidence and factual conclusions reached by the Board, claiming that the background information used by the Board was outdated and did not accurately reflect the situation of close relatives, both male and female, of people who are considered rebels, and reiterated that she was not examined for signs of torture even though she gave her consent for such an examination to be carried out. Based on the material on 18 See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. 11