CAT/C/52/D/466/2011 2.9 In the meantime, the complainant left Denmark for Germany, without informing the Danish authorities. His attempts to get married in Germany were unsuccessful, as he had no passport. On 30 May 2005, the German authorities deported him back to Denmark. 2.10 On 5 April 2006, the Appeals Board informed the complainant of its decision to reconsider his case. At the hearing before the Appeals Board, the complainant confirmed that he had been granted refugee status in Romania and that he had stayed there for seven years. He added that his relations with the PRK had ended in 2000 and that, therefore, he had not contacted the PRK in Denmark. As regards the risk of being subjected to illtreatment if returned to Turkey, he stated that the Turkish authorities would recognize him, even if he had stopped his activities for the PRK; that, at worst, he would be called up for military service; that he would risk imprisonment, for 12 years, to serve the remainder of his 1988 sentence, and/or for 7 years, if the Turkish authorities charged him with having led the PRK in Turkey; and that he would be subjected to enforced disappearance. 2.11 On 28 June 2006, the Appeals Board rejected the complainant’s asylum request as lacking credibility and found that he had failed to substantiate that he would be at risk of persecution if forcibly returned to Turkey. No medical examination of the complainant was requested by the court.6 Nothing in the case file indicates that the complainant requested such an examination either. 2.12 On 8 August 2008, the UNCHR office in Romania informed the complainant that as he had not requested an extension of his refugee status in Romania, he was no longer considered as a refugee in Romania. UNHCR noted that the expiry of his refugee status could be challenged in Romanian courts, but such proceedings were usually lengthy and the outcome was difficult to predict. 2.13 On 28 June 2011, the complainant was returned to Turkey by the Danish authorities. 2.14 The complainant argues that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies, as the decisions of the Appeals Board are not subject to appeal.7 6 7 As per the decision of 28 June 2006, on file, the Appeals Board found, in particular, that the complainant had made contradictory statements regarding his activities and places of residence in 1991 and 1994, that he had concealed his residence in Romania before the Danish authorities. It also noted that he had not explained why he had given up his residence in Romania until the asylum proceedings in Denmark had been reopened. It considered as not credible his claim that he had left Romania in 2001 because of the two alleged incidents of 1999, which he never disclosed to the Romanian asylum authorities. It found that he had given very general and contradictory information about his political activities after his release in 1991, both regarding their level, the period covered and the meetings attended. It also established that, after his release on parole in 1991, the complainant had obtained a driving licence, lived under his own name in Turkey and had been able to travel to Greece and return to Turkey. It found, therefore, that the complainant could not have been wanted under the circumstances and that his claim regarding the risk of persecution, in particular due to his failure to complete military service, was unsubstantiated. Reference is made to the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on Denmark (CERD/C/DEN/CO/17), paragraph 13, whereby the Committee noted with concern that decisions by the Appeals Board on asylum requests were final and may not be appealed before a court and recommended that asylum seekers be granted the right to appeal against the decisions of the Appeals Board. Reference is also made to the State party’s follow-up replies (CERD/C/DEN/CO/17/Add.1), paragraph 12, in which the State party noted that decisions by the Appeals Board are final, “which means that it is not possible to appeal the Board’s decisions. This is stated by law and confirmed by a Supreme Court decision of 16 June 1997”. Reference is also made to Committee against Torture communications No. 210/2002, V.R. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 17 November 2003; No. 225/2003, R.S. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 19 May 2004, and No. 209/2002, M.O. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 12 November 2003 (deportation 5