CAT/C/55/D/571/2013 The complainant and his spouse were allegedly unable to return to Afghanistan out of fear that the complainant would be kidnapped again. 2.5 On 27 May 2011, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the complainant’s application for asylum. On 13 January 2012, the Danish Appeals Board rejected the complainant’s appeal on the ground that “the male applicant’s abduction is an act of crime and the male applicant will not, on account of that, face a real risk of persecution, as defined in the Danish Aliens Act, article 7, paragraph 1, or be submitted to circumstances covered by the Danish Aliens Act, article 7, paragraph 2, upon return to his country of origin”. 2.6 On 8 March 2012, the Danish Refugee Council, representing the complainant, applied to the Appeals Board to re-open the case. It argued that, inter alia, it was not clear whether the Board recognized that the male applicant had been abducted, but did not believe that the abductors were the Taliban. The Refugee Council also argued that, regardless of whether the abductors were the Taliban or a group of criminals, the Board had not assessed whether the complainant would obtain protection from the Afghan authorities if he again faced the risk of abduction upon return to Afghanistan. On 19 July 2013, the Appeals Board rejected the request and reiterated the same conclusions as those mentioned above. 2.7 The complainant claims that, according to UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum seekers from Afghanistan, 5 the Afghan State is unable to fully protect its citizens against human rights violations. 2.8 Since, according to the Danish Aliens Act, decisions of the Danish Appeals Board cannot be appealed before the Danish courts, the complainant alleges that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies with the final decision by the Appeals Board.6 The present matter has not been submitted for examination to another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 2.9 In his submission dated 24 March 2014, the complainant added that the Danish Appeals Board rejected his application to re-open his case on 19 July 2013. He again requested the Appeals Board to re-open his case on 20 November 2013 and that application was rejected on 20 February 2014. Among the reasons given for the latter request to reopen his case was the fact that the doctor and psychologist in Denmark had confirmed that he had been subjected to torture in Afghanistan. 2.10 The Danish Appeals Board referred to its previous decisions rejecting the complainant’s appeal, in which it did not find it likely that the male applicant had any conflict with the Taliban that would put him at risk of torture upon return to Afghanistan. The complainant stated that the Appeals Board did not consider that there was any significant new information or opinions in relation to the information available at the time of its original decision of 13 January 2012, nor at the time of its second refusal to re-open the case of 19 July 2013. 5 6 4 See United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum seekers from Afghanistan, 6 August 2013, pp. 23-25. Denmark was asked about the absence of appeal before a domestic court in the context of the consideration of its periodic report under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in 2006. In its concluding observations, the Committee recommended that asylum seekers be granted the right to appeal the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board before the Danish courts (see CERD/C/DEN/CO/17, para. 13). In its follow-up report, the Danish Government confirmed that the decisions of the Refugee Board were final (see CERD/C/DEN/CO/17/Add. 1, para. 12).