CAT/C/64/D/693/2015 4.14 Concerning the complainant’s reference to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan, and the indication from the Government of Afghanistan in March 2015 that it wants to renegotiate its repatriation agreement with the Danish authorities, the State party observes that those references cannot lead to a revised legal assessment of the complainant’s eligibility for asylum. The State party believes that the general situation in Afghanistan, including in Kabul, is not in itself of such a nature that, for that reason alone, the complainant could be recognized as a refugee. 4.15 The State party reiterates that, by returning the complainant to Afghanistan on 15 December 2015, it did not violate article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 18 August 2016, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations and maintained that Denmark has violated article 3 of the Convention, in particular because his request to have a medical examination had been rejected by the State party’s authorities. 5.2 The complainant asserted that in addition to violating article 3 of the Convention, the State party had also violated article 16, by keeping the complainant in detention for almost six months prior to his return to Afghanistan on 15 December 2015. 5.3 The complainant recalls having appealed his detention to the High Court of Eastern Denmark. On 4 November 2015, the High Court upheld the earlier decision. On 12 November 2015, the complainant applied to the Appeals Permission Board for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, without success. 5.4 The complainant also submits that, when reviewing his appeal for release, neither the police nor the courts have considered as facts the findings reflected in the Amnesty International medical examination. 5.5 The complainant further submits that after living abroad he risks being perceived as a person who is opposed to the rules of Islam. Additionally, owing to his age, he risks being forced to fight for the Government of Afghanistan or the Taliban, 17 or being subjected to sexual assault. The complainant also claims that he has no protection, since he has no family left in Afghanistan and he belongs to the Hazara minority group. 5.6 The complainant claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies and considers that his communication should be declared admissible and reviewed together with the original claim. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 31 March 2017, the State party reiterated that the Refugee Appeals Board had carefully considered all the elements of the case, including the findings of the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, but had decided not to request a second opinion from the Department of Forensic Medicine for signs of torture as such an examination could not be expected to contribute any further relevant facts to the case. With reference to its previous observations, the State party notes that, based on an overall assessment of the information on file, including the results of the medical examination, the complainant has not been able to demonstrate that his claims are probable, including that he was detained and subjected to torture and other physical abuse by S. and his associates in 2008. The State party also indicates that, although it appears from the medical examination that there is consistency between the alleged torture, his physical and mental symptoms and the objective findings of the examination, this is not tantamount to accepting as a fact that the complainant was detained in 2008 and subjected to torture and other physical abuse by S. and his group. 6.2 The State party notes that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his complaint under article 16 of the Convention, and that this part of the complaint should therefore be considered inadmissible as manifestly 17 See F.K. v. Denmark (CAT/C/56/D/580/2014). 7