CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 Advance unedited version 6.6 Referring to the assessment of the complainant’s vulnerability, the State party observes that when examining the complainant’s first asylum application, the Asylum Unit of the Immigration service was aware of the factors indicating her vulnerable position, i.e., her gender, the reported physical and sexual violence, and her health problems discussed during the interview. It notes that in the absence of a medical statement, the assessment of her vulnerable position remained deficient when the first decision was made, as it assessed the complainant’s education background and safety network but could not take into account her real health status. The State party notes that in the subsequent application process, the Immigration Service based its decision on the earlier conclusion of the Eastern Finland Administrative Court that the complainant’s health status did not make her vulnerable in such a manner that she could be issued with a residence permit. It recalls that in the absence of a medical statement, the Immigration Service could not identify the complainant’s traumatisation before making the first asylum decision and assess its impact on her account, which resulted in the decision that the Service considered the author’s account as implausible in its entirety. The State party emphasizes that the current instructions of the Immigrations Service advise that the interviewers and interpreters in interviews with female asylum seekers must be female if the interview deals with themes of gender based violence, and that a whole day interview is in principle arranged for asylum seekers with some indications of vulnerability. It further highlights that nowadays, the Immigration Service takes into account that asylum seekers are often unaware that indications of vulnerability resulting from genderbased violence have relevance in the asylum process, and notes that in recent years, the Service has provided a lot of training dealing with vulnerability. 6.7 The State party notes that the complainant’s public legal aid attorneys were male and were not present during the asylum interviews in 2016 and 2017. It adds that after the first decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, the complainant’s counsel was replaced by a female lawyer from the Finnish Refugee Advice Centre. The State party equally recognizes that the recording of the interviews held on 15 and 21 April 2016 were missing, and that the recording of the interviews of 4 May 2017 was incomplete. The State party notes that at that time, there were problems with the recording of data in the Immigration Service. Regarding the deficiencies in the quality of the interpretations, the State party observes that the interpreter in question interprets Arabic, English and French, and notes that while the quality of the person’s interpretation of French has not been controlled, his Arabic interpretations were deemed as excellent and good. The State party states that during the asylum interview, the interpreter and the author said that they understood each other’s speech. 6.8 The State party recalls that the author filed a new asylum application on 3 June 2019 and provided a number of statements and patient records as additional evidence. It informs that a legislative amendment concerning the inadmissibility of subsequent applications entered into force on 1 June 2019, but had not been transposed into a policy on the interpretation of the new legislative provisions, meaning that at the time, the Service applied old instructions that did not pay particular attention to considering an asylum seeker’s vulnerable position and to ensuring procedural safeguards. The State party observes that the new instructions of the Immigration Service on admissibility of subsequent applications are supplemented by a checklist, prepared later in 2019. It determines that the examination must take into account whether possible indications of particular vulnerability have been examined appropriately, including traumatic experiences such as rape and torture and possible health problems ensuing from the experience. The State party adds that the current instructions advise to examine preliminarily whether the asylum seeker can be considered as vulnerable, and that the preliminary investigation must assess whether the asylum seeker’s vulnerable position has been taken into account appropriately in assessing the plausibility of the person’s account. It adds that the instructions advise to take into account whether the necessary medical examinations have been arranged for the applicant to examine factors related to earlier persecution or serious harm. The State party considers that, based on the current, more precise instructions, an asylum interview should have been arranged for inquiring appropriately into indications of the author’s particular vulnerability. It adds that the evidence indicates that the complainant might no longer have any safety network in her home country, which is another factor that would have supported the holding of an interview. 6.9 The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee, related to the absolute nature of the non-refoulement obligation, and it contends that the Committee has stated that 10