Huge credibility issues arise on account of a person's medical condition. Consequently, in one case, a Doctor answered an IRB member's questions about the medical report over the phone. The Board is not trying to find out whether the person had been tortured or not but rather is trying to get at the underlying events which demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. The present credibility guidelines are simply information from the legal division on the issue, linking more formal Guidelines for Victims of Torture to them could enhance their role. By law, a case can only be opened if there has been a violation of natural justice and not for having a poor lawyer.
Any appeal can only deal with the evidence on the record.
Rather, it is a serious problem with the law governing the IRB for victims of torture. The existing guideline proposals were developed in 1994 as a joint initiative from the centres for treating victims of torture. The Canadian Council for Refugees then adopted them. These need to be refined and focussed on the needs and authority of the Immigration and Refugee Board because they also contain proposals for changing the law which go beyond the powers of the Board. Guidelines should, to the extent possible, draw on the work of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees which in 1995 itself developed guidelines for dealing with torture victims at a general level.