CAT/C/64/D/693/2015 Taliban commander who had many informants in the city and could bribe anybody to achieve his intentions. 4.9 The State party indicates that, in its decision of 17 September 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board found that the complainant’s statement that he had returned to Afghanistan to marry lacked credibility. The complainant had not provided the information that he had a girlfriend in Afghanistan at any time during the examination of his application by the Danish Immigration Service, or at the hearing of the Board in 2012, and subsequently made inconsistent statements as to whether he had had contact with his girlfriend. Furthermore, the complainant provided divergent statements as to whether he had married at all and where the marriage was contracted. In that respect, the complainant stated to the police on 26 June 2015 that he had married an Afghan woman in late 2014, but that due to the problems that he had faced following his return to Afghanistan, he had never had the time to have a marriage certificate issued. However, at the Board hearing on 17 September 2015, the complainant stated that his girlfriend was not really his spouse, as they had been married at an unofficial ceremony in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.10 The State party observes that the information on the complainant’s date of birth and the spelling of his, his father’s and his paternal grandfather’s names on the certificate of nationality presented in the initial asylum proceedings do not correspond with the contents of the documents presented by the complainant after re-entering Denmark in 2015. On that basis, the Refugee Appeals Board deemed that at least one of the documents had been obtained for the occasion. The State party agrees with the assessment of the Board that this conflicting information reduced the complainant’s credibility even further. The State party adds that, when applying for asylum in Sweden, the complainant did not present to the Swedish authorities the certificate of nationality allegedly obtained when he allegedly returned to Afghanistan, as evidenced by the Swedish authorities’ request of 8 May 2015 to have the complainant returned from Sweden to Denmark under the Dublin Regulation. This directly contradicts the complainant’s statement to the Board on 17 September 2015, in which he claimed that he had presented his certificate of nationality in Sweden. 4.11 The State party submits that the fact that the complainant is a young ethnic Hazara from Paktia Province cannot in itself justify his eligibility for international protection. During the asylum proceedings in Denmark, he had not referred to his ethnicity as a circumstance justifying asylum. According to the Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Taliban attack civilians in local communities in which the local population does not support them, primarily targeting tribal elders, religious leaders and women in the public sphere, and those holding public office. The State party observes that the complainant appears to be a low-profile individual, who has never experienced any problems with the Afghan authorities. It is also quite improbable that the Taliban would attempt to forcibly recruit people in Hazara communities, because the Taliban and the Hazara do not trust each other. 16 Accordingly, the State party affirms that the complainant will not risk abuse contrary to article 3 of the Convention, due to his age and ethnicity, in Afghanistan. 4.12 Regarding the complainant’s reference to K.H. v. Denmark, the State party indicates that that case is different from the present one. In K.H., the Board considered plausible the complainant’s allegations that he would be subjected to torture by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan. 4.13 The State party also refers to Z. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/555/2013, para. 7.5), in which the Committee considered that, although the State party rejected the complainant’s request to conduct a medical examination, the complainant had failed to substantiate basic elements of his claims, and therefore the Committee found that it had not been demonstrated that the authorities had failed to conduct a proper assessment of the risk of torture. 16 6 See Denmark, Danish Immigration Service, Afghanistan: Country of Origin Information for Use in the Asylum Determination Process, report of the Danish Immigration Service’s fact-finding mission to Kabul, Afghanistan, 25 February–4 March 2012 (Copenhagen, 2012).