CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 Advance unedited version her application had been rejected partly due to credibility matters and although she had mentioned that she was traumatised and suffered from PTSD, the request for an oral hearing was rejected. 2.10 On 3 June 2019, the complainant filed a second asylum application, based on the same grounds, and providing more evidence related to her medical condition, which supported the claim that she had been tortured and traumatised. The FIS did not examine her new application in detail, arguing that it was related to old matters and linked to issues it had already decided on, adding that the complainant had not presented new facts or grounds that could change the assessment that was previously made. It repeated that the complainantr cannot be considered as a person of interest to the authorities. On 19 June 2019, the FIS denied the request for an oral hearing and interview and rejected the complainant’s application. It ordered the complainant’s return to the DRC and imposed a re-entry ban for a period of two years. 2.11 The complainant filed an appeal to the Helsinki Administrative Court, with the representation of the Finnish Refugee Advice Centre and provided additional evidence on the violence she experienced and its effects on her, which was not examined by the Immigration Service. She supplemented the evidence with a medical report from 13 September 2019 and requested an oral hearing, given that her previous application was rejected on credibility grounds. The complainant repeated that traumatic experiences can affect a person´s ability to speak about their experiences in different ways and that trauma may also affect a person’s memory and ability to recollect the order of events. She complained that even though she had invoked her arrest, torture and health issues at every hearing since the beginning of her first asylum case, the authorities did not ask her to produce a doctor’s statement or other evidence concerning her health at any stage of the proceedings. The complainant referred to the Committee’s decisions X and Z v. Finland1 and E.K.W v. Finland2 to argue the importance of medical evidence. She also submitted that she did not have a lawyer during the interviews and that the interpreter was male. 2.12 On 17 April 2020, the Helsinki Administrative Court did not grant the request for an oral hearing and rejected the appeal. It noted that the authorities had considered that a medical examination was not necessary to assess the complainant’s application for international protection and added that the assessment by the Immigration Service in June 2019 of the complainant’s health was based on the earlier decision of the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland, which ruled that the complainant’s state of health may have affected her statements, but considered nonetheless that her statements contained implausible elements. The documentary evidence submitted to the FIS in the new application was not deemed to trigger a different assessment. The Court also declared that the complainant had had the chance to clarify her case in both her asylum interview and during the appeal proceedings, noting that she had a legal counsel during her first asylum proceedings. It stated that it had assessed the complainant’s need for international protection based on her statements, including the clarifications submitted in the appeal. The new medical statements submitted showed that the complainant’s diagnoses have remained the same. Therefore, the Court did not find it necessary to return the case to the Immigration Service for further review, adding that the fact that applicants state in their asylum interview that they have been subjected to torture or rights violations in their home country does not mean that the authorities have a duty to arrange a medical examination ex officio, unless it deems it necessary to assess their application for international protection. It therefore concluded that the complainant’s new request for asylum did not contain new grounds that would have an effect on the decision concerning her remaining in Finland. 2.13 The complainant requested leave to appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court and interim measures to stop her deportation. She argued that she is a torture victim whose asylum application has been rejected on credibility matters, ignoring the medical statements she had presented although her vulnerable situation and special needs had been presented in the early stages of the process. The complainant contended that this had left her without the procedural safeguards intended for torture and sexual violence survivors. She added that even 1 2 4 X and Z v. Finland (CAT/C/52/D/483/2011 – CAT/C/85/D/485/2011). E.K.W. v. Finland (CAT/C/54/D/490/2012).