CAT/C/51/D/429/2010 actively sought by the army in 2009, that the army had discovered that she had left the country and that based on the above facts they considered her to be a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The State party also submits that the complainant made conflicting statements in relation to her being detained and tortured by the authorities in 2003.2 The State party points out that the complainant only disclosed that she had had problems with the authorities in Colombo in November 2009, while her initial application for asylum was made in May 2009, and that according to her she was not sought individually, but because the authorities persecuted all Tamils. The State party further points out numerous inconsistencies in her statements regarding the problems she had with the authorities while in Colombo, the reasons why she was allowed to leave the country to go to Canada in 2007 and the reasons why she feared to return to Sri Lanka in 2009. 4.4 The State party further reiterates the content of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board and the reasons why the complainant’s asylum request was rejected, namely that her activities in Sri Lanka were limited and took place many years ago; the “extended information” that she had given in her different statements regarding the instances of her detention and torture; that she was able to freely leave the country and return; that she had not applied for asylum when she visited Canada in 2007; that she applied for asylum in Denmark only after her application for family reunification had been rejected. Accordingly the Board did not consider that she would be exposed to a risk of persecution if she returned to Sri Lanka. 4.5 The State party further describes the structure and the functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board, namely that it comprises a chairman and a deputy chairmen, who are judges, and other members, who must be attorneys or serve with the Ministry of Social Affairs, Children and Integration and that they are appointed by the Executive Committee of the Board. According to the Aliens Act, the members are independent and cannot seek directions from the appointing or nominating authority. Usually the Board assigns a counsel to the applicant and the counsel is allowed to meet with the applicant and to study the case file. Proceedings before the Board are oral; the hearing is attended by an interpreter and a representative of the Immigration Service. The applicant is allowed to make a statement and answer questions; the counsel and the representative of the Immigration Service can make concluding comments and then the applicant can make a final statement. The Board issues a written decision, which is not subject to judicial review. Decisions of the Immigration Service refusing asylum are brought before the Board and the appeal suspends the return of the individual to his country. 4.6 The State party notes that pursuant to section 7, paragraph 1, of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be granted to an alien if the person falls within the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. For this purpose, article 1.A of that Convention has been incorporated into Danish law. Although this article does not mention torture as one of the grounds justifying asylum, it may be an element of persecution. Accordingly, a residence permit can be granted in cases where it is found that the asylum seeker has been subjected to torture before coming to the State party, and where his/her substantial fear resulting from the outrages is considered well-founded. This permit is granted even if a possible return is not considered to entail any risk of further persecution. Likewise, pursuant to section 7, paragraph 2, of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his/her country 2 4 The State party points out that the complainant had omitted the incident in her initial asylum application, that she later stated that she had forgotten to write about it and amended her statement concerning where she was when she was arrested and regarding the reasons for her release and other details.