CAT/C/57/D/593/2014 The complaint 3.1 The complainants claim that the Refugee Appeals Board ignored their political asylum status in Canada, as well as the decision by Denmark not to extradite them to Romania. They claim that, if deported to Romania, they would risk persecution and be subjected to torture. 3.2 This belief arises from that fact that they published their story in the media in Romania while exposing M.C. as corrupt. Because of that disclosure, coupled with the refusal of Denmark to extradite them, they are convinced that, if returned, they would be tortured, beaten, punished or even killed in prison. They also refer to many cases of death in custody in Romanian prisons. They further claim that the reasons for their prosecution in Romania were caused by corruption. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By a note verbale of 29 September 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It recalled the facts of the case and also provided excerpts from relevant domestic legislation and international law. The State party submitted that the complainants had been arrested on 2 January 2013, based on the European arrest warrants issued on 16 September 2011. 4.2 By letters of 17 January 2013, 25 January 2013 and 1 February 2013, the Ministry of Justice of Denmark asked the authorities of Romania whether the complainants had appeared in person in court proceedings in Romania, in accordance with the requirements of the Act on Extradition of Offenders (Denmark). Based on the replies from the authorities of Romania, the Justice Ministry decided not to extradite the complainants, since “it had not been possible to determine the scope” of the participation of the complainants in the court proceedings. The State party submits that the Ministry of Justice of Denmark did not make any other findings, including with regard to the risk of torture or persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment relevant under asylum law.9 4.3 On 24 January 2013, the complainants applied for asylum in Denmark. On 1 October 2013, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the complainants�� asylum applications. The case was then brought to the Refugee Appeals Board. On 25 February 2014, the Board upheld the decision of the Service. 4.4 On 25 February 2014, the Board found that the applicants had given “vague and general” statements about threat of persecution in Romania. It also noted that the applicants had given inconsistent statements about the alleged kidnapping of I.M.’s son, the duration of the period in which threats had been made against them, threats after their departure and other details. 4.5 The Refugee Appeals Board specifically noted that, while the threats had started in 2001, the complainants had not left Romania until the imposition of a criminal sentence on 9 While acknowledging that the Ministry of Justice of Denmark refused to extradite the complainants based on the failure by the authorities of Romania to satisfy the requirements of the European arrest warrant, the State party argues that the Ministry of Justice of Denmark did not make any other determinations. For example, the State party argues, the Ministry did not determine whether, in addition to the requirements of the European arrest warrant, there were other grounds for refusing extradition, including the question whether there was a risk that, following extradition, the complainants would be subjected to persecution or torture, or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment relevant under asylum law. The State party claims that, independent of the Ministry of Justice, the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board made a finding that the complainants’ request for asylum should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded. 5