CAT/C/60/D/602/2014 The facts as presented by the complainant 2.1 The complainant is originally from Darfur. In 2004 he moved to Khartoum and until 2007 he worked in a store. On an unspecified date in 2007, three men from the National Security Force entered the store and subjected the complainant to physical ill-treatment. The complainant’s brother was affiliated to an opposition group, the Justice and Equality Movement, and the three men wanted to obtain information from the complainant about his brother’s whereabouts. They stabbed him with a knife several times and the complainant was taken to a military hospital. He was informed that he was arrested. 2.2 While in the hospital, on 24 April 2007, the complainant was interrogated by police officers, who threatened to beat him to death if he refused to tell them where his brother was and provide information about his brother’s involvement with the Justice and Equality Movement. They also accused him of not being a true Muslim, since he had a Christian girlfriend. One hour after the interrogation, a cleaner in the hospital, who had witnessed the interrogation, advised the complainant to escape as soon as possible, otherwise the police would kill him. Subsequently, the complainant fled the hospital and managed to escape from the Sudan with the assistance of an “agent”. 2.3 From 2007 until 2013, the complainant lived as an asylum seeker in Greece. On 25 April 2012, the complainant’s partner, whom he had met in the Sudan in 2006 and who is an Eritrean national, and their two children were granted a residence permit in Denmark. The complainant entered Denmark and applied for asylum on 25 August 2013. 2.4 On 29 January 2014, the Danish Immigration Service dismissed the complainant’s request for asylum. On an unspecified date, he appealed the decision to the Refugee Appeals Board. On 23 April 2014, the Board upheld the decision of the Danish Immigration Service on the grounds that it found the complainant’s statements inconsistent. The Board did not find credible his statements regarding his ill-treatment, subsequent hospitalization and escape from the military hospital. According to the decision, the complainant was supposed to leave Denmark voluntarily within 15 days. 2.5 Since, according to the Danish Aliens Act, the decision of the Board cannot be appealed before the Danish courts, the complainant submits that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. He further submits that the communication is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his deportation to the Sudan would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention because he would be at personal risk of being persecuted and tortured upon return. He fears that upon return to the Sudan, he could be prosecuted and even killed because of his brother’s militant activities and because of the fact that he has a Christian girlfriend. 3.2 The complainant further claims that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board to refuse him asylum lacked proper investigation and reasoning, contrary to article 3 (2) of the Convention. Moreover, no medical examination was conducted by the Danish authorities in order to confirm or refute the complainant’s claims of physical ill-treatment. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 17 November 2014, the State party submitted that the complainant had entered Denmark on 25 August 2013 without valid travel documents and applied for asylum on the same day. On 29 January 2014, the Danish Immigration Service refused asylum to the complainant. On 23 April 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the rejection by the Danish Immigration Service of the complainant’s asylum application. 4.2 In its decision of 23 April 2014, the Board stated, inter alia, that the complainant belonged to the el Barti clan, was of the Muslim faith and was born in Mallet, Darfur, Sudan. The complainant had not been a member of any political or religious associations or organizations, but had participated in one single demonstration in Mallet because the Government had attacked his region. It also appears from the decision that the complainant had referred to his fear of being arrested and killed by the intelligence service if returned to 2