CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 matter concerning limits on the mandate of a government body. As established by the Supreme Court, the ordinary courts’ review of decisions made by the Board is limited to a review of points of law, including any flaws in the basis for the relevant decision and the illegal exercise of discretion, whereas the Board’s assessment of evidence is not subject to review. 4.10 The State party comments that, pursuant to section 7, paragraph 1, of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be granted to an alien if the person falls within the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. For this purpose, article 1.A of that Convention has been incorporated into Danish law. Although that article does not mention torture as one of the grounds justifying asylum, torture may be considered as an element of persecution. Accordingly, a residence permit can be granted in cases where it is found that the asylum seeker has been subjected to torture before coming to Denmark and where his/her fear resulting from the outrages is considered well founded. Such a permit is granted even if a possible return is not considered to entail any risk of further persecution. Likewise, pursuant to section 7, paragraph 2, of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his/her country of origin. In practice, the Refugee Appeals Board considers that those conditions are met if there are specific and individual factors rendering it probable that the person will be exposed to such a real risk. 4.11 The State party observes that decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are based on an individual and specific assessment of the case. The asylum seeker’s statements regarding the motive for seeking asylum are assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, including general background material on the situation and conditions in the country of origin, in particular whether systematic gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights occur. Background reports are obtained from various sources, including the Danish Refugee Council, other governments, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The Board is also legally obliged to take into account the international obligations of Denmark when exercising its powers under the Aliens Act. To ensure that is done, the Board and the Danish Immigration Service have jointly drafted a number of memorandums describing in detail the international legal protection offered to asylum seekers under, inter alia, the Convention against Torture, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Those memorandums form part of the basis of the decisions made by the Board and are continually updated. 4.12 The State party considers that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly illfounded, because the complainant has not established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey, for the reasons set forth by the Refugee Appeals Board and described above in paragraphs 4.44.7. The State party considers that the complainant is attempting to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his asylum claim reassessed. Under paragraph 9 of general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, the Committee is not an appellate body or a quasi-judicial or administrative body, but rather a monitoring body. Therefore, the Committee should give considerable weight to findings of fact made by the State party’s authorities, in this case, the Refugee Appeals Board. In the present case, the Board upheld the negative decision of the Danish Immigration Service based on a procedure in which the complainant had the opportunity to present his views to the Board with the assistance of legal counsel. The Board conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case. In the State party’s view, with regard to article 12 the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility, as nothing seems to indicate that there is a 7