CAT/C/55/D/571/2013 2.11 However, the Appeals Board relied on those decisions in relation to the complainant’s third request to re-open his case, highlighting in particular that the new medical information that the male applicant was subjected to torture in Afghanistan could not lead to a change in the assessment of the case. The Appeals Board did not find that the complainant had provided any new evidence to prove that he and his spouse were at a real risk of persecution or abuse, as provided for under the Danish Aliens Act (art. 7). The complainant argues that the Appeals Board did not consider whether it was likely that the “male applicant” had been subjected to torture in Afghanistan, it just did not believe that it was the Taliban who had subjected him to torture. The Danish Appeals Board did not set a new deportation date since the original date was suspended on 3 December 2013 at the request of the Committee. 2.12 The complainant emphasizes that the Appeals Board has still not addressed whether he had been subjected to torture during his abductions in Afghanistan, whether he faced a real risk of being subjected to torture again upon return to Afghanistan, nor whether he would obtain protection from the Afghan authorities against being subjected to torture again upon return. The complainant emphasizes that they do not wish their identity disclosed in the Committee’s final decision. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that the Danish authorities did not adequately assess the risk that he would be subjected to torture if returned to Afghanistan. He claims that he would be at personal risk of being persecuted, abducted and tortured by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan, therefore returning him to Afghanistan would violate article 3 of the Convention. His wife is afraid that he will be killed by the Taliban if they return to Afghanistan, and she does not think that they would be safe, even in another part of Afghanistan, since the Taliban was able to find her husband both in Kandahar and in Kabul. 3.2 The complainant submits that, regardless of whether his abductors were the Taliban or a group of criminals, the Danish Appeals Board should have assessed whether he could obtain protection from the Afghan authorities if returned to Afghanistan. Given that he was abducted more than once, and that the Taliban were able to find him both in Kandahar and in Kabul, there is a risk that he would be abducted again upon his return. The complainant maintains that the State party should have addressed that risk and considered that he had been subjected to torture during his abductions and for that reason he would be at risk of being abducted again upon return to Afghanistan. In that regard, the complainant underscores that the Appeals Board did not contest the fact that he had been abducted twice before fleeing to Denmark. 3.3 In support of his claims, the complainant refers to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines regarding asylum seekers from Afghanistan (see para. 2.7 above), according to which the Afghan State is unable to fully protect its citizens against human rights violations. It is reported that “even where the legal framework provides for the protection of human rights, the implementation of Afghanistan’s commitments under national and international law to promote and protect these rights in practice frequently remains a challenge”.7 According to the Guidelines, there are “high levels of corruption, ineffective governance and a climate of impunity” and “in most areas the police are not linked to a functioning justice system, while there is no effective governance backing up the police in many areas”.8 7 8 See UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines, (see note 5), p. 23. Ibid. 5