CAT/C/63/D/703/2015
I.U.K.’s fishing trip. 8 I.U.K. also made inconsistent statements about why he ended up
staying with his brother-in-law.9
4.7
The State party also submits that, as appears from the Board’s decision of 21
October 2014, I.U.K. made a statement at the hearing before the Board on the abuse
allegedly committed against him. His statement in this respect has therefore been taken into
account in the decision made by the Board on an equal footing with the other information in
the case. In its decision of 27 August 2015, the Board stated that it had considered whether
the reason for the inconsistent and elaborating elements of the complainants’ statements
could be that I.U.K. had been subjected to torture as claimed by him, but found that this
could not be the case. The State party observes in this respect that both complainants have
made inconsistent statements, including about their visas, and that R.R.K. changed her
statements on this matter during the proceedings. It therefore agrees with the Board’s
assessment that the inconsistent elements of the complainants’ statements cannot be
explained by the abuse to which I.U.K. was allegedly subjected while detained as stated by
him. Thus, the statements are not only mutually inconsistent, but both complainants also
changed from time to time. The State party observes in this respect that the inconsistencies
of the complainants’ statements mentioned above on crucial parts of their grounds for
asylum, including in particular about their visas, cannot be explained by the circumstance
that the complainants were in a highly stressful situation prior to their departure. In this
connection, reference is made to the fact that the complainants applied for and were issued
with visas for Poland before the alleged conflicts took place. The State party argues that the
circumstances referred to cannot be explained by the fact that the complainants normally do
not talk about their individual activities. It is observed in this respect that the complainants
also made inconsistent statements about the reason given by I.U.K. to his spouse for their
departure.10
4.8
As regards the complainants’ claim that the Board should have initiated I.U.K.’s
examination for signs of torture, the State party submits that there was no need since the
8
9
10
6
In particular, it appears from the reports of the interviews with the complainants conducted by the
Immigration Service that I.U.K. stated at the asylum screening interview on 8 January 2014 that,
while on a fishing trip on 9 November 2013, he received a call from his spouse who told him not to
come home because the police were looking for him. At the asylum interview on 2 June 2014, he first
stated that, in the early morning of 10 November 2013, he had been in contact with a friend who had
talked to his spouse who had said that the police had been at their home. Later at that interview, I.U.K.
stated that his friend had called him in the morning on the day after the fishing trip telling him that he
had talked to R.R.K. who had said that I.U.K. should not come home because the authorities had been
at their home. I.U.K. further stated at the same interview that his spouse had called the friend who had
passed on the message to him. I.U.K. stated that he had not brought a telephone on the trip because
his mobile phone was out of order. When informed that his spouse had stated that she had called
I.U.K., he replied that his spouse must have forgotten to whom she had talked. Finally, at the hearing
before the Board, I.U.K. provided entirely new information stating that he woke up at the place of his
spouse’s brother the day after the fishing trip and was told that representatives of the authorities had
been at his home. He did not recall whether he had talked to his spouse. He had brought his telephone
with him on the fishing trip, but the connection had been poor. In contrast, R.R.K. first stated at the
asylum screening interview on 8 January 2014 and later at the asylum interview conducted by the
Immigration Service on 2 June 2014 that she had called her spouse to tell him not to come back.
When asked directly at the asylum interview, she stated that she did not understand her spouse’s
statement and that she maintained that she had contacted her spouse on the telephone and told him
about the incident. However, at the hearing before the Board, she stated that she had tried to call her
spouse numerous times, but had failed to get through. At some point, she had heard that the telephone
had been picked up, but no one had answered. She had said on the phone that her spouse should not
come home and had then hung up. In its decision of 21 October 2014, the Board observed that this
seemed highly unlikely.
In particular, during the asylum interview, I.U.K. stated that he had urged his friend to take him there
but to the Board he stated that his friend had just taken him there while he was drunk and did not
know what happened.
In particular, it appears from the reports of the complainants’ asylum interviews that R.R.K. stated to
the Immigration Service that she did not know why they had left Dagestan and that I.U.K. had not
told her about the insurgents and about delivering food to them. However, I.U.K. stated that he did
not know why his spouse stated so because he had told her about it.