CAT/C/64/D/693/2015 unfounded, in accordance with rule 113, subparagraph (b), of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The State party contends that the complaint did not sufficiently substantiate the claim that there were substantial grounds for believing that Denmark had violated its obligations under article 16 of the Convention by detaining the complainant. The complainant has not stated in what way the authorities violated the State party’s obligation to prevent other forms of ill-treatment that do not amount to torture. All decisions on the deprivation of liberty were made by the courts under the applicable provisions of the Aliens Act. 6.3 The State party also indicates that the case law of the Board includes similar cases where the conclusions of a medical examination support complainants’ claims that they sustained physical or mental injury as a result of torture inflicted as a consequence of a conflict with the authorities. In such cases, however, the Board may ascertain that the asylum seeker suffers from physical or mental injury, but that the reason why the injury was inflicted and who caused the injury cannot be established. Moreover, an examination does not necessarily clarify whether the complainant’s injury was caused by torture or whether the injury sustained was sustained in an incident such as a fight, an assault, an accident or an act of war; and an examination cannot at all clarify whether or not the statement given by the asylum seeker as to why he or she was subjected to abuse, and by whom, is true. 6.4 Regarding the complainant’s claim on his prolonged detention, the State party notes that, following his disappearance and failure to appear when summoned, an alert was recorded in the Danish Criminal Register on 30 September 2013 for the purpose of his detention and return to Afghanistan. In order to ensure the complainant’s presence for his return to Afghanistan, as allowed by section 36 (1) of the Aliens Act, he was deprived of his liberty upon his transfer from Sweden to Denmark on 17 June 2015 under the Dublin Regulation. On 19 June 2015, the District Court of Hillerød acknowledged the lawfulness of his detention and decided to extend it. The Court ordered the extension of the complainant’s detention period several times due to certain developments in the case, including the Board’s decision to suspend the case until further notice and a failed attempt to return him when he physically obstructed attempts to get him to board a plane on 20 October 2015. The complainant was detained for a total period of 5 months and 28 days, which was mainly attributed to the complainant’s own circumstances, including his lack of cooperation. 6.5 The State party observes that the application of the provisions of the Aliens Act concerning detention for the purpose of return depends on an individual assessment and on whether there is a basis for depriving an alien of his or her liberty or whether lighter measures are sufficient to ensure his or her presence. Such an assessment may cover different matters pertaining to the personal circumstances of the alien and the circumstances of the case in general, including whether the alien has observed any duty to report so far, whether the alien has previously disappeared, whether the alien has collaborated in the determination of his or her nationality and identity or otherwise contributed information to the case proceedings and whether there are other circumstances requiring the detention. 6.6 Concerning the complainant’s allegation that the State party violated article 16 of the Convention and his submission that the police and the courts should have accepted as facts the contents of the Amnesty International medical report when ruling on his deprivation of liberty, the State party indicates that the police had made an ongoing assessment of whether the complainant’s detention could be continued, while paying attention to the condition of his health. The police were in constant dialogue with the complainant about his health, including each time he was taken to the court at the expiry of a period of detention. Prior to the return procedure on 20 October and 15 December 2015, the complainant indicated to the police that he was healthy and that he was not taking any medication. 6.7 The State party also notes that the High Court of Eastern Denmark took the report of the Amnesty International examination for signs of torture into account when it considered the complainant’s detention claim. In this connection, the legal rules do not prescribe the weight to be given to evidence by a court and, accordingly, it is up to the court to decide which evidence to credit and how much weight to give it. No information was provided to 8