CAT/C/52/D/466/2011 asylum in Romania in 1997, it follows from his Romanian asylum file that he requested asylum at the Greek embassy in Romania in 1996. In the light of those inconsistencies, which have not been reasonably explained by the complainant, the State party is unable to accept his statements. 4.7 The State party refutes the complainant’s contention, with respect to the Appeals Board decision of 8 November 2002, that the assessment of his credibility was based on his failure to notify the Danish authorities of his refugee status in Romania. It explains that the Board was then unaware of his failure to do so. It further argues that the fact that the complainant had been granted refugee status in the past, in another country, is not in itself sufficient to conclude that his removal to Turkey would contravene article 3 of the Convention. 4.8 As to the complainant’s contention that the Danish authorities have failed to conduct a medical examination, the State party submits that the present case did not warrant otherwise in the light of the finding of the Appeals Board that the complainant had failed to substantiate the risk of being subjected to torture, if returned to Turkey. The State party explains that the Board may request a medical examination in cases invoking torture as a reason for granting asylum. The decision as to the necessity of such an examination is usually made at a Board hearing. The necessity of such an examination is determined on a case-by-case basis and is particularly contingent on the credibility of the torture-related claims. If the Board considers such a claim credible but establishes no real and present risk of torture upon return, a medical examination will normally be dispensed with. Similarly, such an examination will not be necessary if the Board considers that an asylum seeker has not been credible throughout the proceedings, and it rejects his torture claim altogether. However, when the Board considers that an asylum seeker meets the requirements for a residence permit under article 7 of the Aliens Act13 but the accuracy of his statement remains questionable, a medical examination can be conducted. The State party also submits that the complainant’s alleged torture during his imprisonment between 1983 and 1991 is not in itself a sufficient ground for granting asylum. 4.9 The State party challenges the relevance of the complainant’s reference to the Committee’s case law. It submits that the authors of communications Nos. 373/2009 and 349/2008 were members of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) who participated in the organization’s armed fight and therefore risked persecution under the Turkish AntiTerrorism Law. Communications Nos. 409/2009 and 460/2011, in which the Appeals Board reopened the asylum proceeding and issued residence permits to the complainants, were submitted by nationals of the Syrian Arab Republic and Eritrea, respectively. However, it should be noted that the facts are distinguishable, including country-specific information regarding the Syrian Arab Republic and Eritrea as compared to Turkey, in the present case. 4.10 As to the complainant’s reference to the description of his alleged torture that was included in the 2002 decision of the Appeals Board, the State party clarifies that the 13 8 Article 7 of the Aliens (Consolidation) Act No. 785 of 10 August 2009 reads: 7. (1) Upon application, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien falls within the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951). (2) Upon application, a residence permit will be issued to an alien if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his country of origin. […] (3) A residence permit under subsections (1) and (2) can be refused if the alien has already obtained protection in another country, or if the alien has close ties with another country where the alien must be deemed to be able to obtain protection.