CAT/C/70/D/743/2016 decision-making process or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities have failed to take properly into account. 4.26 In the light of these considerations, the State party believes that the Committee is not in a position to conclude that the complainant would face a real risk of torture if returned to Turkey and that the case should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. 4.27 Regarding the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board on 14 March 2016, the State party notes the complainant’s contentions that the Board asked him only a few questions, that he was not asked about inconsistencies between his previous statements and the conclusions of the medical report, and that there was no discussion on the medical examination. The State party notes that under section 40 of the Aliens Act, asylum seekers must provide such information as required for deciding whether they fall under section 7 of the Act. Thus, an asylum seeker must substantiate the claim that the conditions for granting asylum are met. Asylum seekers are given an opportunity, at the hearing before the Board, to make a statement. First, their counsel ask them questions, and then the representatives of the Danish Immigration Service ask questions. The Board may ask further questions for the purposes of clarification. If the Board asks only a few questions, it means that the asylum seekers and their counsel have provided sufficient information for the Board’s assessment. 4.28 Regarding the lack of discussion on the medical examination, the State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board had accepted as facts the findings of the report on the medical examination, and that the complainant and his counsel had the opportunity to make any comments on the report that they found relevant at the Board hearing on 14 March 2016. 4.29 Regarding the complainant’s comments on the objectivity and independence of the Refugee Appeals Board, the State party notes that the decisions delivered in his case on 30 August 2013 and 17 March 2016 were adopted by different Board members. The case was reopened, which meant that a full review of the case was conducted, including of any new information in the case, and a different panel conducted an oral hearing on 17 March 2016. The complainant made a statement, his counsel asked him questions, and he was then questioned by the representative of the Danish Immigration Service. The complainant made a long statement about his circumstances. His counsel and the Danish Immigration Service were permitted to make oral arguments, and lastly the complainant was given the opportunity to make a final statement. 4.30 The State party notes that, in its decision of 17 March 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board noted that it could not establish as facts the complainant’s claims that he had been a member of the Democratic Society Party since 2006, and that he had been subjected to physical and mental abuse in the period 2006–2008. According to the Board, the complainant has failed to offer, with the degree of certainty and accuracy that should be expected, an account of when and how he was active within the parties mentioned and of the circumstances related to his detention and the abuse against him. 4.31 The Refugee Appeals Board also found that the complainant’s statement that he had joined PKK and escaped from a military camp in mid-2010 could not be considered as a fact either. In the asylum proceedings, the complainant had given inconsistent statements as to how he joined PKK. In addition, he had stated that he had wanted weapons training, which contradicted his statement of 21 March 2013 to the effect that he had not, at any time, contemplated participating in an armed combat of any type. The Board also found elaborative and not in accordance with his previous statements the complainant’s affirmation given to the Board on 30 August 2013 to the effect that he been arrested several times in Turkey for other reasons in 2009 and that the authorities had failed to realize that he was in fact wanted. That affirmation seemed not to be credible given the background information available on the nature and the intensity of the efforts of the Turkish police and intelligence service to arrest Kurdish opponents and charge them under antiterrorism law. 4.32 Regarding the complainant’s affirmation to the effect that he does not wish to perform military service, on 17 March 2016 the Refugee Appeals Board observed the following: “according to the information available, the circumstance that the applicant has not performed compulsory military service will not entail any disproportionate sanction, and it is found that it cannot justify a residence permit”. 8