CAT/C/60/D/602/2014 the Sudan because of his brother’s attachment to the Justice and Equality Movement. The complainant had also referred to his fear of reprisals or of being killed by both individuals and the authorities because he was in a relationship with a Christian woman, whom he had met in 2006. In support of his grounds for seeking asylum, the complainant had submitted that he had been detained and tortured on 12 April 2007. He had later been admitted to a military hospital because he was unconscious and had escaped from there with the assistance of a hospital employee. 4.3 A majority of members of the Refugee Appeals Board could not find as facts the complainant’s statement on his detention, subsequent hospitalization and escape from a military hospital. In its assessment, the Board emphasized that, on essential points, the complainant had made inconsistent and augmentative statements, and that he and his partner had made inconsistent statements concerning the reason for their departure from the Sudan. When interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service, the complainant had stated that he had participated in a demonstration in 2003, but that it had not given rise to problems, and that he had moved to Khartoum in 2005 because he had not wanted to live in the same town as his brother. At the hearing before the Board, the complainant had stated that he had moved to Khartoum in 2003 because the animals he was tending as a shepherd had been killed. Later at the hearing, the complainant had changed his statement, saying that he had started travelling back and forth to Khartoum in 2003, but that he had not moved there until 2005. When interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service on 20 November 2013, the applicant had stated that he had been approached at his workplace by three men, who had beaten and tortured him, stabbing him with a knife all over his body so that he had fainted, after which they had taken him to a military hospital. When interviewed on 17 January 2014, the applicant had stated that three or four persons had looked for him and taken him to the police station, where he had been beaten and whipped across the thighs, and that he had lost consciousness the next day and had therefore been taken to a hospital. The complainant’s partner had stated to the Danish Immigration Service on 14 September 2009 that the complainant had been arrested during a visit to his parents. At the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, the complainant had stated that his body had been cut with pieces of metal. 4.4 The complainant and his partner had also made inconsistent statements on the reason for the complainant’s departure from the Sudan. During her asylum proceedings, the complainant’s partner had stated that the complainant had problems with the authorities because he was a conscientious objector, whereas the complainant had stated that it was his brother’s attachment to the Justice and Equality Movement that had given rise to his problems with the authorities. Finally, it appears from the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board that the majority of members had emphasized that the applicant’s statement on his escape from the military hospital did not seem probable. The Board had also found that the complainant’s relationship with a Christian woman could not justify asylum. The Board had emphasized the background information available, from which it appeared that it was permitted for Muslim men and Christian women to marry in the Sudan, that there was no reason to believe that the authorities would react against such marriages, and that it was very unlikely that such relationships would be reported to the police, since they were not illegal. The majority of Board members had found no basis for adjourning the proceedings pending an examination for signs of torture. 4.5 The majority of members had therefore found that the complainant had not been persecuted before his departure and would not, if returned, be at such risk of persecution as to justify residence in Denmark under section 7 of the Aliens Act. 4.6 The State party further provides a detailed description of the legal basis for the work of the Board and its methods of work. 2 4.7 Concerning the significance of the asylum seeker’s credibility relative to the significance of medical information, the State party refers to the Committee’s decision in 2 For a detailed description see, for example, communication No. 580/2012, F.K. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, paras. 4.9-4.11. 3