CAT/C/59/D/634/2014 complainants’ statements during the asylum proceedings and recalls that neither the first nor the second complainant was a member of any political or religious associations or organizations, or was politically active in any other way. 4.2 The State party describes the structure and jurisdiction of the Refugee Appeals Board and indicates that it is an independent, quasi-judicial body. The Board is considered a court within the meaning of article 39 of European Union Council Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status. Pursuant to section 53 (6) of the Aliens Act, cases before the Board are heard by five members: one judge (the Chair or the Deputy Chair of the Board), an attorney, a member appointed by the Danish Refugee Council, a member serving with the Ministry of Justice and a member serving with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After two terms of four years, Board members may not be reappointed. Under section 53 (1) of the Aliens Act, Board members are independent and cannot accept or seek direction from the appointing or nominating authority or organization. The Board issues a written decision, which may not be appealed; however, under the Danish Constitution, aliens may bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, which have the authority to adjudicate any matter concerning the limits to the competence of a public authority. As established by the Supreme Court, the review by ordinary courts of decisions made by the Board is limited to a review on points of law, including any inadequacy in the basis for the relevant decision and the unlawful exercise of discretion, whereas the Board’s assessment of evidence is not subject to review. 4.3 The State party indicates that, pursuant to section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if he or she falls within the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Convention status). Article 1 (A) of that Convention has therefore been incorporated into Danish law. Although the article does not mention torture as one of the grounds warranting asylum, it may be considered as an element of persecution on the grounds of, for example, political views. The fact that an asylum seeker has been subjected to torture or similar treatment in his or her country of origin may therefore be of essential importance to the assessment of whether the conditions for granting the asylum seeker residence under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act are met. Likewise, pursuant to section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, a residence permit will be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his or her country of origin (protection status). In practice, the Refugee Appeals Board considers that those conditions are met if there are specific and individual factors substantiating that the asylum seeker will be exposed to a real risk of the death penalty or of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to the country of origin. 4.4 However, according to the case law of the Refugee Appeals Board, the conditions for granting asylum or protection status cannot be considered satisfied in all cases where an asylum seeker has been subjected to torture in his or her country of origin. Where the Board considers it a fact that an asylum seeker has been subjected to torture and risks being subjected to torture in connection with persecution for reasons falling within the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in case of return to his or her country of origin, the Board will grant residence under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act, provided that the conditions for this are otherwise met. Furthermore, following a specific assessment, a residence permit can be granted under section 7 (1) of the Act where it is found that an asylum seeker has been subjected to torture before he or she fled to Denmark and where his or her substantial fear resulting from the abuse is therefore considered well founded although, according to an objective assessment, return is not considered to entail any risk of further persecution. Moreover, the Board will find that the conditions for granting residence under section 7 (2) of the Act are met if specific and individual factors render it probable that the asylum seeker would be at real risk of being subjected to torture in case of return to his or her country of origin. 5