CAT/C/63/D/703/2015
that it would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention to return them to the
Russian Federation. In this connection, it observes that the complainants have not provided
to the Committee any new information on their conflicts in their country of origin beyond
the information already available to the Board when it made its decisions on 21 October
2014 and 27 August 2015.
4.3
The State party provides a detailed description of the asylum proceedings under the
Aliens Act and decision-making processes and functioning of the Board.6 It observes that
the Board made an assessment in the complainants’ case — as it does in all other asylum
cases — as to whether their statements appeared credible and convincing, including their
probability, coherence and consistence. In its decisions of 21 October 2014 and 27 August
2015, the Board found that it could not, upon an overall assessment of the statements made
by the complainants in conjunction with the other information in the case, consider as
established facts the complainants’ statements on their conflicts in their country of origin
prior to their departure. The Board thus found that the complainants’ statements appeared to
be fabricated for the occasion, inconsistent and elaborated. It therefore found no basis for
initiating I.U.K.’s examination for signs of torture.
4.4
In its decision of 21 October 2014, the Board emphasised, inter alia, that it appeared
from the case file that the complainants had applied for visas for both Poland and Greece,
although this was initially disputed by both complainants, after which R.R.K. stated that
she did have knowledge about the application for Poland for which she had paid a
considerable amount without the knowledge of her spouse. 7 The State party observes in this
respect that it appears from the replies from the Polish and Greek authorities to visa
inquiries that the complainants have been issued with visas valid for both Poland and
Greece. Against that background, the State party agrees with the Board that the
complainants’ statements on their visas appear non-credible. It does therefore not seem
credible that the Greek authorities would issue visas to the complainants without the
complainants knowing how or why this had taken place. Nor does it seem credible as stated
by R.R.K. at the hearing before the Board that she had paid 2,500 euros for visas for Poland
without the knowledge of her spouse.
4.5
The State party also observes that the complainants had been issued with visas for
Poland valid from 17 December 2012 to 17 January 2013, which was before their problems
with the authorities had started. It also observes that the complainants had obtained visas
for Greece valid for periods of 10 days commencing on 1 November 2013 and 22
November 2013, respectively, which is precisely around the period when they departed
from the Russian Federation, according to their own statement. In this connection, the State
party does not find it credible that, as stated by the complainants to the Immigration Service,
they had never been issued with international passports, whereas at the hearing before the
Board, R.R.K. stated that she had had international passports issued for both complainants
in connection with a visa application for Poland and that the passports had been delivered to
them in November. The State party observes in this respect that it weakens the credibility of
the complainants in general that they maintained their incorrect statements on the visas
despite numerous opportunities to correct them and that the assessment of their statements
should be seen in light of those circumstances.
4.6
The State party further submits that, in its decision of 21 October 2014, the Board
also emphasized that the complainants had made mutually inconsistent statements, which
also changed from time to time, including about R.R.K.’s telephone call in connection with
6
7
See M.B. et al. v. Denmark (CAT/C/59/D/634/2014), paras. 4.2–4.8.
In particular, at the asylum screening interviews conducted by the Immigration Service on 8 January
2014, the complainants concurred that they had not previously applied for any visas or residence
permits. Even though they were confronted with the information from the Polish and Greek
authorities at the asylum interviews conducted by the Immigration Service on 2 June 2014, the
complainants maintained their statements at that interview. Only at the meeting with counsel prior to
the Board hearing on 26 May 2014 did R.R.K. state that she had applied for visas for Poland in 2012
for herself and her spouse without his knowledge, whereas both complainants continued to maintain
that they knew nothing about the visas for Greece.
5