CAT/C/60/D/602/2014 the case of Otman v. Denmark,3 in which the complainant’s statements on torture and the medical information provided on this were set aside, owing to the complainant’s general lack of credibility. In this decision, the Committee referred to paragraph 8 of its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, pursuant to which questions about the credibility of a complainant, and the presence of relevant factual inconsistencies in his claim, are pertinent to the Committee’s deliberations as to whether the complainant would be in danger of being tortured upon return. The State party also referred to the Committee’s decision in the case of Alp v. Denmark, 4 in which it found that the State party’s authorities had thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainant, had found the complainant to lack credibility, and had not considered it necessary to order a medical examination. 4.8 The State party refers to the Views of the Committee in the case of X, Y and Z v. Sweden, 5 and to the Committee’s decision in the case of M.C.M.V.F. v. Sweden, 6 and maintains that the crucial point is the situation in the country of origin at the time of the potential return of the alien to that country. 4.9 The State party submits that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his complaint under article 3 of the Convention, and refers to rule 113 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. It has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant is in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to the Sudan. The complaint is therefore manifestly illfounded and should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee find the complaint admissible, the State party submits that the complainant has not sufficiently established that it would constitute a violation of article 3 to return him to the Sudan. 4.10 As can be seen from the decision made by the Refugee Appeals Board, the Board did not consider as a fact the complainant’s statement concerning his grounds for seeking asylum, since the majority of members of the Board emphasized that, on essential points, the applicant 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 (see paras. 4.3 and 4.4 above). The Board thus found that the complainant had failed to substantiate his claim that he had been subjected to torture. 4.11 As regards the complainant’s observations that the Danish immigration authorities decided the complainant’s application for asylum without initiating an examination for signs of torture even though the complainant had consented to undergoing such examination, the State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board normally does not order an examination for signs of torture where the asylum seeker has appeared noncredible throughout the proceedings, and the Board therefore has to reject the asylum seeker’s statement about torture in its entirety. The State party submits that the case considered by the Committee in the case of K.H. v. Denmark7 differs considerably from the complainant’s case in that it concerned an Afghan national whose grounds for seeking asylum were related to the Taliban, and that the Board “could find the complainant’s statement regarding his conflicts with the Taliban as a fact”. 4.12 The Refugee Appeals Board also found that the complainant’s relationship with a Christian woman did not justify asylum (see para. 4.4 above). In this respect, the State party refers to the International Religious Freedom Report for 2012 — Sudan8 published by the Department of State of the United States of America on 30 July 2012, which was also included in the background material of the Board in the assessment of the complainant’s case. Upon an overall assessment of the information provided by the complainant for the case, in conjunction with the other particulars provided, including the information provided 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 See communication No. 209/2002, Otman v. Denmark, decision adopted on 12 November 2003, paras. 6.4-6.6. See communication No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 May 2014. See communication No. 61/1996, X, Y and Z v. Sweden, Views adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2. See communication No. 237/2003, M.C.M.V.F. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 12 December 2005, para. 6.4. See communication No. 464/2011, K.H. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2012. See http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?year=2012&dlid=208200.