CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 that he would be unable to obtain identity documents, but that he would not mind being presented at the Embassy of Turkey. By order of 6 November 2013, the District Court of Hillerød found the detention lawful and extended it until 3 December 2013. 6 By order of 3 December 2013 issued by the District Court of Hillerød, the detention of the complainant was extended until 17 December 2013.7 On 4 December 2013, the national police contacted the Turkish Embassy and it agreed that the national police would present the complainant at the Embassy on 10 December 2013 for the issuance of travel documents, since he did not have such documents. On 6 December 2013, the national police informed the complainant of the appointment with the Embassy. He stated in that connection that he was unwilling to be presented at the Turkish Embassy. By order of 12 December 2013 issued by the District Court of Hillerød, the District Court decided 8 to permit employees of the national police to present the complainant at the Turkish Embassy in Copenhagen and to order the Danish Prison and Probation Service to remove him from the cell and commit him to the care of the police. The District Court also decided to extend his detention to 9 January 2014 in order to ensure he would be present for the expected return to Turkey. On 17 December 2013, the national police made an attempt to collect the complainant from the Ellebæk Institution at 9.15 a.m. for his presentation at the Turkish embassy at 10 a.m. on the same date. However, he would not leave his cell and it thus became impossible to reach the Embassy for the appointment at 10 a.m.; a new appointment was therefore made for the next day at 9 a.m. On 18 December 2013, the national police collected the complainant from his cell at the Ellebæk Institution. Prison officers fetched him from his cell since he would not voluntarily come along. The complainant had several superficial cuts on his left forearm and his stomach. The prison staff informed the national police that they had occurred just as he was to be fetched and that the cuts were superficial. It was established that the bleeding from the wounds had ceased. The complainant subsequently put on a sweater and a jacket was brought along for him in the car. During the drive to Copenhagen, the complainant was calm and quiet. Before arriving at the Embassy, however, the national police were informed that the complainant’s counsel had just filed an appeal with the High Court of the order of 12 December 2013 issued by the District Court of Hillerød, whereupon they turned back and returned to the Ellebæk Institution. On 20 December 2013, the High Court upheld the order of 12 December 2013 issued by the District Court. In a letter dated 2 January 2014, the Committee requested the Government not to deport the complainant to Turkey while his case was being considered by the Committee. The complainant was released on 6 January 2014 and was ordered to report to the immigration authorities. 4.9 The State party also describes the relevant domestic law and the structure and operation of the Refugee Appeals Board and notes that it is an independent, quasi-judicial body. The Board is considered as a court within the meaning of the European Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status. 9 Cases before the Board are heard by five members: one judge (the chairman or the deputy chairman of the Board), an attorney, a member serving with the Ministry of Justice, a member serving with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a member appointed by the Danish Refugee Council as a representative of civil society organizations. After completing two terms of four years, Board members may not be reappointed. Under the Aliens Act, Board members are independent and cannot accept or seek directions from the appointing or nominating authority or organization. The Board issues a written decision, which is final and may not be appealed; however, under the Constitution, applicants may bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, which have the authority to adjudicate any 6 7 8 9 6 As provided for in sections 37 and section 36 (1) of the Aliens Act. Ibid. Pursuant to section 40 (4) of the Aliens Act. The State party cites article 39 of European Council directive 2005/85/EC.