CAT/C/49/D/464/2011 Taliban, that he gave a false name, and that the blows to which he was subjected that caused a broken rib were not of such nature and scope to be relevant for his request. The Board further held that the complainant had provided contradictory information about his place of origin and that his allegations that he had been detained by the authorities on suspicion of terrorism and severely mistreated were inconsistent with respect to the circumstances of his location, detention and escape. Therefore, his statements were not credible and it was unlikely that the complainant would be at risk of persecution or abuse if returned to Afghanistan. Despite his reiterated requests for a medical examination, the Board denied his asylum request, without ordering any medical examination that might have shed light on possible sequelae of torture. 2.7 The complainant claims that with the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that the State party did not assess adequately 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 and tortured by the Afghan authorities or the Taliban, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainant submits that although the Refugee Appeals Board accepted his allegation that he was detained by the Taliban and treated in such a way that a rib was broken, it did not concede that this was a relevant fact for the asylum determination. The State party did not even consider whether the Afghan authorities would be able to protect him against the Taliban’s violence. In its assessment of the complainant’s allegation of violence committed by the authorities, the Board focused mainly on certain inconsistencies in his statements that were not relevant enough to reject his application, and that were produced due to problems with interpretation. Furthermore, despite the medical evidence provided 1 and his request for further specialized medical examination, the Board denied his request for asylum without ordering such an examination. Accordingly, the State party’s failure to consider the medical information provided by the complainant and its refusal to request further medical examinations constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.2 3.3 The complainant alleges that the State party also failed to consider and assess his claims within the framework of the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, in particular to take into account that torture is widespread in the country, that the legal system has collapsed, and that both the Afghan authorities and the Taliban commit acts of violence against the population. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 15 December 2011, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits and requested the Committee to declare the complaint inadmissible as manifestly unfounded pursuant to article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, or otherwise to declare that the complaint does not disclose a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 1 2 4 The complainant provided two medical reports, or “memoranda” (English translation from the Danish), dated 11 October and 13 December 2010, in which it is noted that he had not been able to sleep for more than a year due to nightmares relating to torture experienced while he was in prison. It is also noted in the reports that the complainant claimed to suffer from pain in the left thorax and requested drugs for it. The complainant refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in communication No. 339/2008, Amini v. Denmark, decision adopted on 15 November 2010.