lations mention MLRs in the instructions on the Aliens Law (Vreemdelingencirculaire, Vc).56 In Germany, bzfo highlighted a basic court rule introduced by the German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVerwG)57 in 2007. The court rule states that if during the court proceedings an MLR is introduced by the asylum-seeker or the legal representative, which meets certain minimum standards, but where the judge does not acknowledge the diagnoses and prognosis, then the court should adjourn the hearing and order that a second full and independent MLR is obtained (funded by public funds). This rule should be applied during any asylum appeal proceedings and in deportation cases where a failed asylum-seeker is appealing a deportation order. This also should apply when an MLR meeting the minimum standards is introduced to BAMF before the first decision. However, BAMF rarely requests an MLR at the early stages of the asylum procedure, and therefore the proper investigation of an asylum-seeker´s allegation of past torture continues to not be realised in many cases.58 In Croatia, the member centre indicated that MLRs are seldom acknowledged in practice. MLRs are not mentioned in either legislation or policies regarding the national asylum procedure. As a member of the EU from 1 July 2013, Croatia must ensure that national asylum legislation and policy is harmonised according to the minimum standards laid down by the relevant asylum directives that form part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS).59 Rest of Europe: The centre in Armenia indicated that MLRs are not acknowledged. This is of concern as Armenia is a party to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Further to the ECHR judgment in RC v Sweden, all parties to the ECHR should acknowledge the importance of MLRs as relevant evidence in asylum proceedings and the additional obligations to obtain medical evidence in asylum cases where allegations of torture have been raised.60 On a positive note, centres in Kosovo and Moldova both indicated that MLRs are acknowledged by law, and the centre in Turkey indicated that MLRs are always acknowledged as relevant evidence in policy and practice. In Kosovo, the member centre confirmed that MLRs, including psychological reports produced by IRCT member centre KRCT, are used as evidence in practice during the asylum procedure. With the recent amendments to the Law on Asylum, asylum-seekers who have experienced torture or degrading punishment in their country of origin will receive additional protection. North America In the USA and Canada, MLRs are always acknowledged in practice or policy as relevant evidence in the national asylum procedure. In the USA, the applicant’s lawyer (if represented in the asylum proceedings) is usually the person who deems whether it is necessary to rely on an MLR as relevant evidence. The relevance of the MLR as evidence also depends on the qualification of the expert; for example, psychological evaluations must be conducted by a licensed mental health evaluator and are submitted as an affidavit in the asylum proceedings. In Canada, the MLR is considered an important piece of evidence to be submitted to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Guidelines produced by the IRB note that the early identification of “vulnerable” persons is preferable “at the earliest opportunity”, and that, “Wherever it is reasonably possible, independent credible evidence documenting the vulnerability must be filed with the IRB “” Foundation House, Australia “Best practice is when the Tribunal accurately understands the purpose of the MLR and the way it can inform decision-making, and then applies the MLR’s conclusions to assist in the evaluation of the applicant’s credibility, capacity to undertake the hearing and his/her ability to inform the Tribunal of experiences relevant to the claim.” Recognising victims of torture in national asylum procedures / 31