CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 4.5 Specifically, concerning his compulsory military service, the Board reasoned that it appeared unlikely that he would be called up for military service before reaching the age of 20 as, under Turkish military law, individuals are not called to perform compulsory military service before that age. Furthermore, with regard to the complainant’s party membership and political activities, two of the Board members reasoned that there is no basis for rejecting his statement that he had been a member of lawful political parties from 2006 to 2010 (the Democratic Society Party and the youth branch of the Peace and Democracy Party) and, in that context, he had attended demonstrations, Kurdish festivals and memorial ceremonies and been apprehended and detained in that connection. However, the Board members found that the complainant had failed to substantiate that he had become conspicuous in any way owing to that or that these political activities constituted any risk to his safety today. The other two Board members found that the complainant’s statements must be rejected in their entirety and, accordingly, those two Board members could not accept as a fact that he had been politically active and apprehended and detained in that connection. Those Board members had taken into consideration that the complainant had been unable to give a relevant account of when and how he had been active in the Kurdish political parties and of the instances of detention relied upon. 4.6 The State party observes that the majority of the Refugee Appeals Board found that the remaining part of the complainant’s statements about his grounds for asylum had to be rejected as incoherent, lacking in credibility and fabricated for the occasion. Hence, the majority of the Board could not accept as a fact that the complainant had joined PKK. In that respect, it had been taken into particular account that he had made inconsistent statements as to when he joined PKK and that he had replied vaguely and evasively when questioned thereon by the Board. The majority of the Board also considered the complainant’s statement about his reaction when he and his friends were caught in crossfire on their way to the PKK training camp to lack credibility. His credibility was further weakened by the fact that he had given elaborating statements to the Board when stating that, before he left Alanya in 2008, it had been announced on television that his cousin had been arrested and that the complainant himself was listed as wanted. Also, this did not in any way seem coherent with his statements that he had been detained by the authorities several times in 2009 for other reasons without the authorities realizing that he was wanted. 4.7 The State party further explains that, as the complainant had not been able to substantiate the grounds for asylum invoked before the Refugee Appeals Board, the majority of the members rejected his claim of being persecuted by the authorities or PKK. The fact that he did not want to perform his compulsory military service did not justify asylum or protection status. According to the background information available, he was not at risk of any disproportionate sanction. The Refugee Appeals Board ruled in its decision that the complainant had to leave Denmark immediately after the decision was handed down, because it found that this was a matter of urgency as a consequence of the criminal offence committed by him. 4.8 Concerning the return proceedings, the State party observes that, on 12 September 2013, the complainant had been summoned for an interview (departure monitoring) by the national police, but failed to show up. An alert was therefore recorded in the Central Criminal Register so that the complainant could be re-accommodated at the Sandholm Reception Centre, and it could be impressed on the complainant that he had to stay in the specified place and report to the national police at the specified times. On 4 November 2013, the Copenhagen police came across the complainant in Copenhagen by chance, detained him pursuant to section 36 of the Aliens Act and placed him at the Ellebæk Institution for Detained Asylum Seekers. In connection with departure monitoring carried out by the national police on 5 November 2013, the decision of 30 August 2013 of the Refugee Appeals Board was served on the complainant. He stated in that connection that he could not return to Turkey and referred to his grounds for seeking asylum. He also stated 5