CAT/C/61/D/625/2014 unsigned, while the document provided to the Board was signed by a religious group. In addition, the Board considered as not plausible the explanations given by the complainant as to why the mentioned letter, presented only after the asylum claim was rejected, was not provided at an earlier stage of the asylum proceedings. 5 Although the Board considered that it could not be ruled out that, according to the picture provided by the complainant, the scars on his leg were consistent with his allegation that they were caused by the assault he suffered in 2011,6 it concluded that, in view of their nature, the author’s injuries could also have been sustained in another context. In view of the issues surrounding the credibility of the complainant, the Board considered that even if the injuries were the result of the attack described by the complainant, it would not change its own assessment, namely that if returned, the complainant would not be at risk of persecution in Pakistan. 2.6 As regards the incident in the police station, the Board found it unlikely that the arrest had a motive other than possession of alcohol, which corresponds to the content of the police report submitted by the complainant to the Board. In addition, the Board considered that the complainant’s claim that he had been assaulted when he was arrested in connection with such charges would not change its assessment, as he had been subsequently released and has not been contacted in connection with those charges. The Board emphasized the fact that the injuries suffered by the complainant were not permanent compared with the long period of time that had elapsed between that incident, his release and his departure from the country. Finally, as regards the complainant’s request to stay proceedings pending the result of a medical investigation into his claims of torture, the Board found no reason to do so, since the outcome of such an investigation would not affect its decision on his asylum application. 2.7 The complainant indicates that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies as the decisions by the Board cannot be appealed. The complaint 3.1 The complainant submits that his deportation to Pakistan by the State party would constitute a violation of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention since he would be at risk of being persecuted and tortured by members of the Muslim community owing to his Christian beliefs and activities, the reason for which he has already been harassed, threatened and attacked. In addition, he claims that the authorities in Pakistan would not protect him or investigate any claims of torture that he might make because he is a Christian. 3.2 The complainant claims that despite his visible scars, which resulted from the torture he was subjected to in Pakistan, the State party has denied him a medical examination. He claims that his complaint is identical to those found in Amini v. Denmark 7 and K.H. v. Denmark,8 in which the Committee found a violation of the Convention, because the State party rejected the complainants’ requests to carry out a medical examination in order to determine if they had been tortured. He further indicates that in one of the cases mentioned — K.H. v. Denmark — the State party’s failure to protect the complainant from refoulement has had dramatic consequences, as he was subjected to torture after being deported to his country of origin. 3.3 The complainant further claims that in the event that he is returned to Pakistan, he will be at risk of being interviewed and tortured by the police upon arrival at the airport, owing to the visible scars on his legs, arms and forehead. 3.4 The complainant also claims the existence of a pattern of massive human rights abuses and use of torture in Pakistan and refers to the “UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for 5 6 7 8 In the Board’s decision of 4 August 2014, it is indicated that when asked why he had not previously stated that he had this document, he replied that he had not attached much importance to the letter, but that he had subsequently spoken to his counsel, who had advised him to gather evidence. See para. 2.2 above. See communication No. 339/2008, Amini v. Denmark, decision adopted on 15 November 2010. See communication No. 464/2011, K.H. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2012. 3