CAT/C/55/D/555/2013 that he is indeed an ethnic Uighur, as the difference between Uighurs and Hans is plain to see. In addition, the complainant argues that the State party violated article 3 of the Convention by denying him any real possibility of having his rejected asylum decision reviewed. The complainant maintains that this argument is supported by the Committee’s decision on communication No. 416/2010.4 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 29 January 2014, the State party describes the structure and operation of the Refugee Appeals Board and indicates that it is an independent, quasijudicial body. The Board is considered as a court within the meaning of the European Union Council Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards for procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status (art. 39). Since 1 January 2013, cases before the Board have been heard by five members: one judge (the chairman or the deputy chairman of the Board), an attorney, a member serving with the Ministry of Justice, a member serving with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a member appointed by the Danish Refugee Council as a representative of civil society organizations. After two terms of four years, Board members may not be reappointed. Under the Danish Aliens Act, Board members are independent and cannot seek directions from the appointing or nominating authority. The Board issues a written decision, which may not be appealed; however, under the Danish Constitution, applicants may bring an appeal before the ordinary courts, which have authority to adjudicate any matter concerning limits on the mandate of a government body. As established by the Supreme Court, the review by ordinary courts of decisions made by the Board is limited to a review of points of law, including any flaws in the basis for the relevant decision and the illegal exercise of discretion, whereas the Board’s assessment of evidence is not subject to review. 4.2 The State party indicates that, pursuant to section 7, paragraph 1, of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be granted to an alien if the person’s circumstances fall within the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 1 (A) of that Convention has therefore been incorporated into Danish law. Although the article does not mention torture as one of the grounds justifying asylum, it may be considered as an element of persecution. Accordingly, a residence permit can be granted in cases where it is found that the asylum seeker has been subjected to torture before coming to Denmark, and where his or her fear resulting from the torture is considered well-founded. The permit is granted even if a possible return is not considered to entail any risk of further persecution. Likewise, pursuant to section 7, paragraph 2, of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his or her country of origin. In practice, the Refugee Appeals Board considers that those conditions are met if there are specific and individual factors rendering it probable that the person will be exposed to such a real risk. 4.3 The State party observes that decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are based on an individual and specific assessment of the case. The asylum seeker’s statements regarding the motive for seeking asylum are assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, including general background material on the situation and conditions in the country of origin, in particular whether systematic gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights occur. Background reports are obtained from various sources, including the Danish Refugee Council, other governments, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for 4 4 See communication No. 416/2010, Ke Chun Rong v. Australia, decision adopted on 5 November 2013, para. 7.5.