CAT/C/60/D/653/2015 The complaint 3. The complainants claim that their deportation to Chechnya would expose A.M.D. to torture, which he has already suffered while in detention, and that the risk of this happening again is all the more likely given that a criminal investigation has reportedly been opened against him by the Chechen authorities. His family is also at risk, for being related to an individual who is sought by the authorities. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 23 July 2015, the State party submitted that the complaint should be considered inadmissible. Should the Committee find the complaint admissible, the State party submitted that article 3 of the Convention would not be violated if the complainants were returned to the Russian Federation. 4.2 The State party confirmed that, on 24 July 2013, the complainants entered Denmark without valid travel documents and applied for asylum the same day; that, on 18 December 2013, the Danish Immigration Service refused to grant them asylum; that, on 26 May 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board decided to return the cases back to the Service for reconsideration because of new information; that, on 4 August 2014, the Service again refused to grant the complainants asylum; and that, on 19 December 2014, the Board upheld the refusal by the Service to grant asylum. 4.3 Following the complainants’ submission of a communication to the Committee, on 26 January 2015 the complainants requested the Refugee Appeals Board to reopen their application for asylum, enclosing a report of 27 March 2015 by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group on A.M.D.’s examination for signs of torture. On 26 May 2015, the Board refused to reopen the asylum proceedings. 4.4 The State party submitted that, in its decision of 19 December 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board had stated, inter alia, that the majority of the members of the Board had not found the complainants’ statements credible because they had failed to include, on their own initiative, information indicating that international passports had been issued to the complainants in April 2013 and that the complainants had applied for visas for Spain; when confronted with that information, they had stated that, around May 2013, they had taken steps to have visas issued for Spain. From the case file it appeared that there was an application dated 3 July 2013 signed by the applicants for visas for Spain. It also appeared from the case file that there were aeroplane tickets for flights from Moscow to Barcelona on 20 July 2013, while the complainants had stated at the asylum screening interviews that they had left their country of origin to go to Denmark precisely on 20 July 2013. The majority of Board members also found the complainants not to be credible because they responded vaguely and evasively to key questions, including on how often A.M.D.’s brother came to visit them between 2010 and 2013. The Board therefore found that the complainants had not substantiated that the conditions for residence under section 7 (1) or (2) of the Aliens Act had been met. 4.5 The State party provided a detailed description of the legal basis for the work of the Refugee Appeals Board and its methods of work. 4 4.6 The State party maintained that the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were of special relevance to the activities of the Refugee Appeals Board and that protection against torture and similar treatment under those conventions had been incorporated into section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act. However, according to the case law of the Board, the conditions for granting asylum or protected status could not be considered satisfied in all cases where an asylum seeker had been subjected to torture in his or her country of origin. That approach also accorded with the practice of the Committee. 5 Where 4 5 For a detailed description, see, for example, communication No. 580/2014, F.K. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, paras. 4.9-4.11. The State party referred, inter alia, to the Committee’s decisions in communications No. 277/2005, N.Z.S. v. Sweden, adopted on 22 November 2006, and No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, adopted on 14 3