CAT/C/70/D/743/2016 2.7 On 14 March 2016, the complainant was invited to a meeting with the Refugee Appeals Board. He explained to his counsel that he had informed the Danish Immigration Service during his first interview about the tortures that he had suffered in the past, but that he had never been asked to sign a paper confirming his readiness to undergo medical examinations in that regard. During the meetings, none of the Board members asked the complainant any questions. The medical report regarding the complainant’s torture, prepared by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group and dated 25 September 2014, was also not discussed. 2.8 The Refugee Appeals Board issued its decision on the complainant’s case on 17 March 2016, finding no reason to request a medical examination. On 21 March 2016, the complainant was informed by the police that he had to leave Denmark immediately. 2.9 The complainant claims that he subsequently applied to the European Court of Human Rights, but that his case was never registered.2 2.10 The complainant claims that his deportation would constitute a violation by the State party of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. In support of his claim, he notes that several reports, including the report by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, show that the human rights situation in Turkey is such that deportation would violate article 3 of the Convention, with the authorities using excessive force, torture and ill-treatment. The complainant reiterates that: (a) He has been tortured in the past, as documented in the medical report by Amnesty International dated 25 September 2014, and no other medical reports have been produced despite his specific requests to the Danish immigration authorities in this connection; (b) He was politically active in PKK in the past, but he quit and will be punished by PKK if he returns to Turkey; (c) His credibility has been questioned by the Danish immigration authorities, but they never questioned that he has been active for the Kurdish cause since 2006; (d) The Danish authorities never questioned that he refused to perform compulsory military service and that he fears not only imprisonment and ill-treatment in this connection, but also forcible enrolment in the army. 2.11 The Refugee Appeals Board has focused on the issue of credibility: although a majority of the Board members questioned the complainant’s credibility, they were unable to reach agreement as to which points they did not believe. While elsewhere such a decision could normally be appealed, in Denmark decisions of the Board are not subject to court control. In this connection, the complainant notes that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in its concluding observations following its consideration of the sixteenth and seventeenth periodic reports of Denmark submitted under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, expressed concern that decisions by the Board on asylum requests were final and could not be appealed before a court (CERD/C/DEN/CO/17, para. 13). 2.12 The complainant claims that the responsibility for evaluation of the risks of forcible removal based on past torture rests with the State party. In his opinion, the Refugee Appeals Board tried to avoid this obligation. First, the Board refused to reopen the asylum case on 18 September 2015, when it noted that the report by Amnesty International did not contain such new relevant information as to require the reopening of the case. Second, following the adoption by the Committee in November 2015 of its decision concerning communication No. 580/2014, the Board did reopen the case, but the proceedings resulted in no change. The complainant claims that all of the Board’s decisions, in 2015 and 2016 and earlier, were in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 2 Later in his submission, the complainant’s counsel contradicts himself by stating, without further clarification, that the European Court of Human Rights has declared the case inadmissible. 3