CAT/C/49/D/464/2011 4.11 The purpose of the complaint is to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his claim of asylum reassessed by the Committee. The State party recalls the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention,3 and points out that the Committee should give considerable weight to findings of fact made by the State party concerned. In the present case, the complainant had the opportunity to present his views, both in writing and orally, with the assistance of legal counsel. Subsequently, the Refugee Appeals Board conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case. Therefore, it submits that the Committee must give considerable weight to the findings of the Board. 4.12 The Refugee Appeals Board rejected the complainant’s claim on the grounds that he had not rendered it probable that he would risk new outrages on the part of the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan. He stated during the proceedings that all workers were questioned and searched by the Taliban. Hence, he was not being persecuted personally. In addition, he gave a false name and he lived in Afghanistan without any further problems for at least one year after the incident. 4.13 As to the complainant’s claim of being tortured by the Afghan authorities, the State party argues that his statement about being wanted by the Afghan authorities was not credible since he had given such fundamentally diverging statements as to his place of origin, his whereabouts when the explosion occurred in Jalalabad, the circumstances in which he was detained, and the conditions for his release.4 4.14 As to the complainant’s claim that the inconsistencies in his statements were due to the interpretation service, the State party notes that through the interviews with the police and the immigration authorities, the complainant was provided with language interpretation to and from Pashto, as it is his mother tongue. It further submits that after having had the asylum registration of 23 August 2010 read out to him, the complainant confirmed his statement and signed the report without mentioning any language problem in connection with the interview conducted by the police. After the interviews conducted by the Immigration Service, the reports were translated by the interpreter and reviewed with the complainant, who had the opportunity at that stage to make comments, if any. However, he made no comment about language problems. Likewise, during the Refugee Appeals Board hearing, in which the complainant was represented by his counsel, no objections were made to the interpretation of his statements. 4.15 The State party submits that it was unnecessary to initiate an examination of the complainant for signs of torture, as requested by the complainant, since his statements were not credible. The immigration authorities accepted the complainant’s allegation about having been subjected to violence resulting in a broken rib in connection with the conflict with the Taliban, but concluded that he was not under the threat of Taliban persecution and therefore he would not risk new outrages by them. In contrast, the Refugee Appeals Board was unable to accept as fact the complainant’s allegation of having been detained and subjected to acts of violence by the Afghan authorities. 4.16 The complainant produced various new details before the Committee, including a photocopy allegedly reproducing a newspaper article from an Afghan local newspaper containing a notice declaring that the applicant was wanted for terrorism. The State party notes that this document was not submitted during the asylum proceedings. It further claims that it does not provide significance evidence in the case and that there is no credible 3 4 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX. See paragraphs 4.3-4.5 above. 7