CAT/C/52/D/466/2011 decision merely reproduced his statements to the Danish asylum authorities, which does not imply that the Appeals Board accepted them as true. 4.11 Should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the State party submits that the complainant has failed to establish that his removal to Turkey would contravene article 3 of the Convention. Paragraph 5 of general comment No. 1 places on the complainant the burden to establish an arguable claim. Furthermore, the risk, for the complainant, of being subjected to torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory and suspicion, and, although it does not have to be highly probable, it should be real, personal and present, under paragraphs 6 and 7 of general comment No. 1. The State party invokes the Committee’s jurisprudence and submits, with reference to its arguments contained in paragraphs 4.3 to 4.10 above, that the complainant has failed to establish the existence of such a risk for him, in Turkey. Therefore, his return to Turkey does not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 26 February 2012, the complainant explained that although he generally agrees with the description of the facts by the State party, the State party has omitted that the counsel’s request for a reopening of the proceedings, filed in 2011, also contained a request for the conduct of a medical examination, which was rejected by the Appeals Board on 27 June 2011. He challenges the State party’s argument that a medical examination was unnecessary in his case, for lack of credibility. On the contrary, such an examination should have taken place because his credibility was at issue. The complainant argues that his deportation to Turkey, together with the rejection of his medical examination request, constituted a violation of article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention. He also argues that, in the circumstances, the State party’s comments on the merits are insufficient. 5.2 The complainant further points out several problems related to the organization and decision-making process of the Appeals Board. First, the decisions of the Board, notably its assessment of evidence, are not subject to review by a court. Second, it lacks impartiality, as one of its three members is an employee of the Danish Ministry of Justice, which processes the applications for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds filed by rejected asylum seekers. 5.3 The complainant emphasizes that, under the Refugee Convention, asylum can be granted based on one’s past torture before fleeing a country, even if the risk of persecution upon return thereto has not been established. This notwithstanding, and despite the fact that article 7, paragraph 1, of the Aliens Act refers to the definition of a refugee contained in the Refugee Convention, a residence permit can be granted to a victim of past torture only if there is a risk that he or she would be subjected to torture again, if returned to his or her country of origin. Therefore, it is important to allow a medical examination regarding past torture even if there is no evidence of persecution or torture in the future. In addition, such an examination may support one’s description of torture before the Appeals Board, as the Board may “forget” that torture suffered in the past could lead to the recognition of refugee status under the Refugee Convention, even if the risk of persecution or torture no longer exists. Furthermore, under article 7, paragraph 2, of the Aliens Act, the risk of being subjected to torture or persecution should be real. The complainant claims that “real” is difficult to assess, but might mean “highly probable”, which is not required under the Convention. 5.4 He argues that the State party fails to refer specifically to the Convention in some parts of its observations, which implies that domestic legislation and the practice of the Appeals Board may not be in line with article 3 of the Convention and general comment No. 1. Unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, international human rights treaties, such as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 9