CAT/C/61/D/625/2014 circumstances that are relevant to the prevailing political realities in the country concerned.10 4.6 The State party also indicates that when torture is invoked as grounds for asylum, the Board takes into account factors like the nature of the torture, including the extent, grossness and frequency of the abuse, the asylum seeker’s age, and the time elapsed between the alleged torture and the asylum seeker’s departure from his or her country of origin. The State party further indicates that a crucial point for a review of an asylum claim is the situation in the country of origin at the time of the potential return of the asylum seeker and refers to M.C.M.V.F v. Sweden, in which the Committee took into account the change of situation in the country of origin of the complainant — El Salvador — where the armed conflict had ceased 10 years before the complaint was brought to the Committee. 11 In addition, the State party indicates that the Board takes into account information on whether systematic, gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations take place in the country of origin. 4.7 Regarding the complainant’s allegation related to the State party’s refusal to conduct a medical examination in order to look for signs of torture on his body, the State party indicates that when torture is invoked as grounds for asylum, the Board may order such an examination, but that this decision is only taken during the Board’s hearing, as the assessment of the need for a medical examination depends on the asylum seeker’s statements, in particular his or her credibility. Therefore, the Board generally does not order an examination for signs of torture when the asylum seeker has lacked credibility during the asylum proceedings. Furthermore, even if the Board considers it proved that the asylum seeker has previously been subjected to torture, if it finds that there is no real risk of torture upon return at the present time, it will not order a medical examination. The State party refers to M.O. v. Denmark,12 in which the Committee considered that there had not been a violation of the Convention due to the complainant’s lack of credibility, despite his statement that he had been subjected to torture and the medical evidence he had provided to demonstrate this allegation.13 The State party also refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Cruz Varas and others v. Sweden,14 in which the Court found that despite the medical evidence provided by the applicant, substantial grounds had not been shown for believing that the applicant’s expulsion would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment upon return to his country of origin, due to the inconsistencies of his statement during his asylum proceedings. The State party considers, therefore, that as decided by the Board, there was no need to conduct a medical examination in the present case, taking into account the lack of credibility of the complainant.15 It adds that the medical report provided by the complainant, dated 20 August 2011, does not substantiate the complainant’s claim that he is a victim of torture. 4.8 Furthermore, the State party maintains that the Board has taken into account all relevant information in its decision of 4 August 2014 and that the complainant has not brought any new information to the Committee. The State party refers to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in R.C. v. Sweden, in which the Court considered that “as a general principle, the national authorities are best placed to assess not just the facts but, more particularly, the credibility of witnesses since it is they who have had an opportunity to see, hear and assess the demeanour of the individual concerned”.16 The State party indicates that the Board, after making a thorough assessment of the complainant’s 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 See communications No. 227/2003, A.A.C. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 16 November 2006, para. 8.3; and No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 May 2014, para. 8.6. See communication No. 237/2003, M.C.M.V.F et al. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2005, para. 6.4. See communication No. 209/2002, M.O. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 12 November 2003. The State party also refers to Alp v. Denmark. See European Court of Human Rights, Cruz Varas and others v. Sweden (application No. 15576/89), judgment of 20 March 1991, paras. 77-82. See para. 2.6 above. See European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden (application No. 41827/07), judgment of 9 March 2010, para. 52. The State party also refers to the Court’s judgment in M.E. v. Denmark (application No. 58363/10), 8 July 2014. 5