CAT/C/55/D/555/2013 Refugees, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The Board is also legally obligated to take into account the international obligations of Denmark when exercising its powers under the Aliens Act. To that end, the Board and the Danish Immigration Service have jointly drafted several memorandums describing in detail the international legal protection offered to asylum seekers under, inter alia, the Convention against Torture, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The memorandums form part of the basis of the decisions made by the Board, and are continually updated. 4.4 The State party adds to the factual background of the communication and points to several inconsistencies and deficiencies in the information the complainant provided during asylum proceedings.5 The State party considers that on 1 and 6 July 2011, the complainant stated that he was of Uighur ethnicity, whereas during his second interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 4 May 2013, he stated that he was of Han ethnicity. During the latter interview, the complainant’s attention was drawn to this inconsistency. He responded that that was a mistake and that he was of Han ethnicity. During the same interview, the complainant stated that he was born in an unknown port in China and had moved to the city of Urumqi at the age of five. When asked in which province Urumqi is located, the complainant said that he had heard that it was located in Tibet. However, he had also heard that it was located in Xinjiang, but he was not sure. The complainant provided the street address at which he lived in Urumqi, but did not remember any monuments or public buildings in Urumqi. He was “subsequently unwilling to assist further in bringing out the facts of the case”. The Refugee Appeals Board decision indicates that an interpreter was used during both interviews with the Danish Immigration Service. According to the Danish Immigration Service report on the first interview in 2011, the complainant “was asked whether there had been any language problems during the interview, and he replied in the negative. The interview report was translated by the interpreter and reviewed with the applicant”. According to the Danish Immigration Service report on the second interview in 2013, “the applicant was told to speak out immediately if he had any problems understanding the interpreter”. According to the report, at the conclusion of the interview, “the applicant stated that he had understood everything that the interpreter had said at today’s interview”. 4.5 The State party also observes that the complainant entered Denmark in mid-2010, but did not apply for asylum until 27 June 2011, when he was stopped and arrested by the police at a festival. During asylum proceedings, the complainant explained that he had not applied for asylum upon arrival in Denmark because he did not know what asylum was, and because he just wanted to be comfortable and earn a little money. On 8 July 2011, the Danish Immigration Service recommended to the Danish Refugee Council that the asylum application should be denied and processed in accordance with the statutory procedure for manifestly unfounded cases. On 13 July 2011, the Danish Refugee Council observed that it did not concur that the claim should be processed as a manifestly unfounded case. On 25 March 2013, the Danish Immigration Service denied the complainant’s asylum application. On 11 July 2013, that decision was upheld by the Danish Refugee Board, on the basis of written evidence. 4.6 During asylum proceedings, the complainant stated that after he was released from detention, he stayed in a hospital for 15 days while his hands and feet were in bandages. He then stayed with a taxi driver for a month to recover enough to be able to go home. He left China one or two months after returning home. The complainant was asked whether the 5 The Refugee Appeals Board decision states that during his first interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 6 July 2011, the complainant was invited to produce documents he deemed important to his asylum application, but did not have anything to produce. 5