• • • • It makes reference to the Istanbul Protocol as a set of guidelines on which national measures dealing with identification and documentation of symptoms and signs of torture, or other serious acts of physical or mental violence, etc., may be based (Recital 31). It obliges a Member State, when it “deems it relevant”, to arrange for a medical examination of an asylum applicant “concerning signs that might result from past persecution or serious harm”. In such cases, the Member State is required to pay for the medical examination (Article 18(1)). It places an obligation on Member tates to ensure that officials interviewing applicants receive training to raise awareness of symptoms of torture and of medical problems that could adversely affect the applicant’s ability to be interviewed (Article 4(3)). Member states are obliged to ensure that personnel examining asylum applications are able to seek advice from medical experts, whenever necessary (Article 10(3)(d)). In the IRCT’s opinion, the renegotiated APD remains unclear in terms of the procedural safeguards it proposes in relation to VoTs. In particular, it is regrettable that the state authorities are given a wide discretion to decide when it is “deemed relevant” to arrange for a medical examination of an asylum applicant. Although the obligation for the state to fund such examinations is welcomed, the provision does not impose a strict obligation on Member States to provide for an examination, and nor does it make it clear that the applicant should be free to choose an independent and impartial medical examiner. This provision therefore falls far short of the guidelines in the Istanbul Protocol on the medical examination of VoTs. The provision further limits the scope of the MLR, insofar that it is intended to support the applicant’s claim in relation to past persecution or serious harm. In addition, although Member States are required to share the burden by placing a duty on authorities to request a medical examination, in cases where the state does not request a medical examination, applicants must arrange to cover the costs themselves. This places an unreasonably heavy burden on the applicant. Overall, there is a lack of clarity in the new provisions, and it is questionable whether the renegotiated APD will lead to significant improvements in the treatment of VoTs at all. Member States will have until 2015 to make relevant changes to national legislation. The importance of good quality decision-making in asylum proceedings involving victims of torture The IRCT’s recommendations include the need to improve the quality of the decision-making in relation to MLRs, particularly as good quality decision-making at the early stages of the asylum process avoids the need for protracted appeals and benefits both the applicant and the state authorities. United Kingdom is not a country addressed in Part 2 of this report, however, it provides an example of promising practice where the immigration authorities have engaged with recommendations made by IRCT member centre Freedom from Torture, with a view to improving the quality of initial decisionmaking in cases involving torture in which medical evidence is relied upon. 60 / Recognising victims of torture in national asylum procedures