CAT/C/49/D/464/2011 5.9 Although the Committee is not an appellate body, as stated in its general comment No. 1, it is not bound by the findings of State party’s agencies and has the power of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case, as provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 5.10 The complainant points out that the State party accepted that he was subjected to serious violence by the Taliban. Nevertheless, the State party’s authorities did not assess the gravity of the violence inflicted in order to see whether this amounted to torture. Moreover, a medical examination would have also given more details about his allegation of torture by the Afghan authorities, but he was prevented from producing this evidence He further asserts that the human rights situation in Afghanistan with regard to the violations committed by the Taliban currently persists and that the governmental authorities are unable to provide protection against the Taliban’s violence. 5.11 As to the authorities’ assessment of his claim regarding the detention and torture inflicted by the Afghan authorities, the complainant argues that the reasons why the authorities concluded that his statements were contradictory are not relevant, since they focused mainly on the fact that he contradicted himself regarding the circumstances in which he was detained after the explosion in Jalalabad. Furthermore, the State party failed to include in its assessment the fact that prominent NGOs had reported the practice of torture by the Afghan police. 5.12 The complainant states that he is from Tora Bora, a region from which many Taliban come, and he speaks Pashto. If returned, these two facts will be enough for the authorities to interrogate him. This, together with the fact that he was forced to promise the Taliban that he would assist them and that the police in Kabul may be aware about his escape from prison, will put him at risk of torture. 5.13 As to the copy of the newspaper article provided along with his complaint, the complainant notes that the Committee is free to assess all facts based upon the full set of circumstances in the case and that it is not prevented from considering evidence that was not produced within the State party’s proceedings. He further explained that he could not provide this document to the authorities because he did not receive it before May 2011. He also emphasizes that the article proves the Afghan authorities’ knowledge about his previous detention and escape from prison, which indicates that he will be at real and personal risk if returned to Afghanistan. State party’s further submission 6.1 On 11 April 2012, the State party submitted further information concerning the complainant’s comments on its observations on the admissibility and the merits. 6.2 The State party points out that the Refugee Appeals Board fully considered the complainant’s claim about conflict with the Taliban and that, as stated in its decision, the complainant himself asserted that he had given a false name, that all workers had been questioned and searched in general, and that he had been able to live in Afghanistan for a year without further problems. 6.3 The Refugee Appeals Board is under an obligation to bring out the facts and make objectively correct decisions. Depending on the circumstances, the Board is supposed to ask the asylum seeker questions at the oral hearing to bring out the facts adequately. This however does not compromise its impartiality and professionalism. The State party further notes that neither the complainant nor his counsel had claimed that a member of the Board had questioned the complainant in an unpleasant manner. After the close of the hearing the complainant was asked whether he had any further comments to make, but he had none. 10