CAT/C/57/D/593/2014 2.13 On 1 October 2013, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the complainants’ asylum application. The Service did not find that, if returned to Romania, the complainants would be subject to persecution, the death sentence, torture or inhuman treatment. The Service concluded that fear of M.C. could not lead to protection under the Convention, and that the conflict involving that individual had happened a long time ago. 2.14 The Danish Immigration Service also concluded that there was no evidence that the complainants or members of their family had been attacked or threatened in 2003 and 2004, or that M.C. had been involved in the alleged attacks or threats. As for their conviction and sentence, the Service did not find that the sentence was unfair in that particular case. The Service stated that the complainants had been represented by a lawyer and had the opportunity to submit evidence to court and to give statements during the trial. As concerning the general detention conditions in Romania, the Service did not find that this claim by itself could justify protection under the Convention. It also took into consideration the fact that the complainants had arrived in Denmark in March 2011 while the protection claim had been submitted only in January 2013. 2.15 On 25 February 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision issued by the Danish Immigration Service. It also requested that the complainants leave the country within 15 days of the said decision. The Board did not question the claim that the complainants had a dispute with a former business associate, but it did not consider that this conflict was of such a nature or intensity as to justify issuance of residence permits pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Aliens Act. The Board also stated that the complainants had submitted vague and general statements regarding threats. While the threats had started in 2001, the complainants had chosen to leave Romania only after they had become aware of their criminal sentence of 2 March 2011. 2.16 The Refugee Appeals Board further stated that, although the complainants had entered Denmark in March 2011, their first asylum application had been submitted in January 2013 after they had been arrested pursuant to an international arrest warrant. They had spent long periods in Romania since their company’s bankruptcy in 2001. Moreover, the Board found some discrepancies in I.M’s claims. Concerning the complainants’ claim that they had faced an unfair trial in Romania, it was noted that the criminal proceedings against them had been considered by several courts in Romania. They had been present during criminal proceedings, had been represented by a lawyer and had had the opportunity to present evidence in their defence and testify. It was solely their presumption that the outcome of the criminal proceedings, in whole or in part, had been a result of corruption. 2.17 The fact that Romania, in several cases before the European Court of Human Rights, has been held of violation of article 6 does not lead to a different assessment. Finally, the complainants pointed out that they feared having to serve prison sentences under conditions that were contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They referred to the general background information on prisons in Romania, together with the fact that Romania, in several cases before the European Court of Human Rights, had been held in violation because of poor conditions of detention. 2.18 Finally, the Refugee Appeals Board did not consider that the general background information and the cited judgments of the European Court of Human Rights constituted a sufficient basis for believing that the complainants, if they were to serve prison sentences in Romania, would be exposed to treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 13 March, the complainants met with the police to arrange for their voluntary return to Romania, and were informed that as of 11 March 2014 they were staying illegally in Denmark, and therefore their forcible deportation to Romania was imminent. 4