CAT/C/64/D/693/2015 The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that the State party did not adequately assess the risk that he would be subjected to torture if returned to Afghanistan. He claims that he would be at personal risk of being persecuted and tortured by the Taliban, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainant submits that, despite the medical evidence provided and his request for further specialized medical examination, the Board denied his asylum request, without ordering such examination. Accordingly, the State party’s failure to consider the medical information provided by the complainant and its refusal to request a further medical examination constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.10 3.3 The complainant claims that the State party also failed to consider and assess his claims within the context of the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, in particular to take into account the statements of government officials of Afghanistan who urged Western Governments to stop all forced repatriation to Afghanistan due to the lack of security and the lack of capacity of the Afghan authorities to protect the human rights of their own citizens. 3.4 The complainant also claims that the State party has violated article 16 of the Convention, as he was deprived of liberty for almost six months prior to his return to Afghanistan. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 1 February 2016, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It maintains that the complaint should be considered inadmissible. Should the Committee find the complaint admissible, the State party submits that it did not violate article 3 of the Convention by returning the complainant to Afghanistan. 4.2 The State party provides a detailed description of the structure, composition, independence, prerogatives and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board. The Board is an independent, quasi-judicial body, and is considered a court within the meaning of article 39 of Council of the European Union Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status. Under the Aliens Act, the Board members are independent and cannot seek directions from the appointing or nominating authorities. The Board’s decisions are final. Aliens may, however, lodge an appeal before the ordinary courts, which can adjudicate on any matter concerning the limits of a public authority’s competence. As established by the Supreme Court, the ordinary courts’ review of decisions by the Board is limited to points of law; the Board’s assessment of evidence is not subject to review. 4.3 The State party notes that, when exercising its powers under the Aliens Act, the Board is legally obliged to take the international obligations of Denmark into account. To ensure that its decisions are in accordance with these obligations, the Board and the Danish Immigration Service have jointly drafted a number of memoranda describing in detail the legal protection of asylum seekers afforded by international law, in particular the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These memoranda form part of the basis for the decisions made by the Board. 4.4 The State party indicates that when torture is invoked as grounds for asylum, the Board takes into account factors such as the nature of the torture, including the extent, grossness and frequency of the abuse, the asylum seeker’s age, and the time that has elapsed between the alleged torture and the asylum seeker’s departure from his or her country of origin. A crucial point for a review of an asylum claim is the situation in the 10 4 See K.H. v. Denmark (CAT/C/49/D/464/2011).