Advance unedited version CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 application for international protection. The State party notes that on 11 April 2019, the Supreme Administrative Court denied the complainant’s leave to appeal. 6.3 The State party explains that in her new application for international protection on 3 June 2019, the complainant invoked the same grounds as before, and presented health reasons as new grounds, including two medical statements to supplement her earlier account and to document the traumatic impacts of the acts of violence against her. The State party notes that the complainant explained that she could not present the documents in support of the application earlier, because she only received them gradually during a long period of time. The State party notes that on 19 June 2019, the Immigration Service declared the complainant’s application inadmissible, and considered that the grounds presented by the author had already been examined in connection with her first asylum procedure. The Service held that there were no new circumstances or grounds influencing the decision substantially increasing the probability that she should be considered in need of international protection and notedthat the author’s additional claim about her health situation did not present any circumstance that would warrant changing the denial by the Administrative Court of the request for a residence permit and considered that the complainant could be returned to the DRC. 6.4 Regarding the complainant’s appeal to the Helsinki Administrative Court, the State party notes that she contended that the complainant argued that the Service could not invoke the earlier decision of the Administrative Court to justify neglecting its obligation to acquire evidence, as the decision only commented on the documents provided to the Court at the time of the earlier decision. According to the State party, the complainant alleged that the Service had failed to identify her vulnerable position, which had affected the whole investigation of the matter, as the Service had failed to consider the impact of her traumatic background on her ability to present evidence in the matter. The State party notes that according to the decision of the Helsinki Administrative Court of 20 April 2020, the author had suggested that the Immigration Service should have arranged a medical examination for her ex oficio and that the Service had failed to comply with its obligation to acquire evidence to assess her health states. The Court noted however, that the Immigration Service had concluded that a medical examination was not necessary and noted that this decision was based on a previous decision of the Eastern Finland Administrative Court, which had concluded that the author’s health status could have affected her account, but that the account had also showed implausible features. The Helsinki Administrative Court held that the documentary evidence presented later to the Immigration Service, including the statements on injuries resulting from torture, did not warrant a different conclusion. The Court concluded that the author’s application had to be considered as a subsequent application, which did not contain any new grounds that would influence the ruling on the matter. 6.5 The State party elaborates on the complainant’s arguments related to the medical certificates and her health situation, and recalls that before the first asylum decision, the author was not requested to present a medical certificate, and she was not specifically informed about her opportunity to provide additional evidence herself. It notes that the author’s health issues were discussed during the interviews on 15 April 2016, 21 April 2016, 4 May 2017 and 23 May 2017. The State party clarifies that the officials who examined the complainant’s first asylum application held that there was no need to request a medical statement because they considered the complainant’s account implausible. It emphasized that medical statements are not requested categorically from all asylum seekers who have experienced torture, though it can be relevant in assessing the plausibility of the asylum seeker’s account. The current instructions advise that if the Immigration Service does not request a medical examination of an asylum seeker, the person must be informed that he or she can have a medical examination conducted at his or her own expense. The State party recognizes that because the author’s account was considered implausible as a whole, a medical statement would have had real relevance in the matter, and it would probably have influenced the general conclusion on the author’s account and plausibility in the decision. The State party states that, taking into account the author’s grounds for seeking asylum and her account about the health problems and serious violations of her rights, a medical statement should have been requested in the first asylum process before making the decision. 9