CAT/C/55/D/571/2013 found him in Kabul; they also found it unlikely that the Taliban would have kidnapped him a second time for the purpose of making him participate in jihad, after having released him shortly before. The majority of the Board members also considered that the complainant had been unable to describe any specific circumstances or details about the events that gave rise to his release, including about his father’s negotiations. Consequently, they concluded that the complainant’s kidnapping was a criminal act and that the complainant would not be at a real risk of persecution under sections 7 (1) and (2) of the Danish Aliens Act if returned to his country of origin. The Board thus upheld the decision of 27 May 2011 of the Danish Immigration Service, refusing asylum to the complainant and his spouse. At the same time, the complainant and his spouse were ordered to depart from Denmark within seven days of the date of the decision, as prescribed by section 33(1) and the second sentence of section 33(2) of the Aliens Act. 4.6 As regards the Appeals Board’s decision of 19 July 2013, refusing the complainant’s request to re-open the asylum proceedings, the State party informs the Committee that the complainant raised, inter alia, the issue of principle in relation to what information the Board should take into account in connection with refusals based on a negative credibility assessment. In particular, the complainant did not consider it reasonable that information on the grounds for requesting asylum, given during an asylum registration interview, should be taken into account in a credibility assessment. The complainant also contested the fact that the Board took into account that the complainant had failed to substantiate how the Taliban would have located him in Kabul. The complainant stated that it seemed as if he and his spouse were met with distrust no matter what they said to the Danish Immigration Service and that parts of the statements that they had made during the proceedings had been incorrectly translated, which had apparently cast doubts on their statements. The complainant also stated that it was unclear whether or not the Board had found it a fact that the complainant had been kidnapped, but just did not believe that he was kidnapped by the Taliban. The complainant stated that it was of no significance to the issue of protection against kidnapping that would be available to him upon return to Afghanistan whether it was the Taliban or another criminal group that had kidnapped him. 4.7 In its decision of 19 July 2013, the Danish Appeals Board found no basis for reopening the asylum proceedings in favour of the complainant, nor did it find any basis for extending the time limit for his departure, as no substantial new information had been provided compared with the information provided at the original appeal hearing. Therefore, the Board could not accept the complainant’s statements about conflicts with the Taliban as facts and relied on its findings in its decision of 13 January 2012. Concerning the statements made by the complainant about the information provided in the asylum registration report, the Board observed that the asylum registration report had been included as part of the cause of the claim for asylum, as was usual in all asylum cases. In that connection, the Board observed that it had based its decision of 13 January 2012 on an overall assessment of all the documents in the case, including the statements made by the complainant and his spouse and all background material available to it on the situation in Afghanistan. Concerning the complainant’s submission that parts of the statements had been incorrectly translated, the Board observed that errors had been corrected by the interpreter who had attended the interview with the Danish Immigration Service. The Board further observed that the parts of the statements that had been incorrectly or inaccurately translated were not taken into account by either the Danish Immigration Service or the Danish Appeals Board in their decisions to refuse asylum. The State party adds that during the hearing, the Board was able to clear up any misunderstandings that may have arisen in connection with the interpretation and translation during previous proceedings by asking additional questions and carrying out an independent assessment of the applicant’s credibility based on his statement given at the hearing. 7