The complaint 3.1The complainant claims that he would be at risk of being tortured if he were returned to Algeria, and that his return would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. He states that he has previously been subjected to torture in Algeria, and that, given his false confession to having assisted the GIA, together with the general human rights situation in Algeria, he is in danger of being subjected to torture again if returned. The State party’s observations on admissibility and merit 4.1In its observations dated 24 March 2003, the State party objects to the admissibility of the claim, and makes submissions on the merits of the claim. In relation to admissibility, it submits that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of a violation of article 3,b and that his complaint should be declared inadmissible. 4.2In relation to the merits, the State party contends that the complainant’s return to Algeria would not contravene article 3 of the Convention. It recalls that on 16 February 2000 he completed an application form, in Arabic, in which he provided information about his reasons for seeking asylum in Denmark. He was counselled as to the importance of providing all relevant information. He was interviewed by DIS officials on 11 December 2000 with the assistance of an interpreter, whom the complainant said he understood. A report produced from this interview was reviewed together with the complainant. On 2 March 2001 the DIS refused the asylum application, and the complainant filed an appeal with the Review Board. In May 2001, the Review Board agreed to stay proceedings so that Amnesty International could arrange for a medical examination of the applicant. This report was submitted on 20 June 2001 (see paragraph 2.3). 4.3The Refugee Board rejected the appeal on 21 August 2001. It found that the complainant had not presented his grounds for seeking asylum in a coherent and credible way. He was found to have provided conflicting and fabricated accounts of his departure from Algeria and his treatment by the Algerian authorities, including details relating to his imprisonment, whether or not he had been convicted of any offence, and his military service. This, together with the Amnesty International report, caused the Review Board to dismiss the appeal. There was no evidence before the Board from which it could have been established that the complainant was at risk of persecution if returned to Algeria. 4.4The State party provides a description of the composition, competence and processes of the Review Board. Decisions of this body are final and not subject to judicial review. This follows from a decision of the Danish Supreme Court in 1997, which noted that the Review Board was an expert body of quasi-judicial character. It reaches its decisions on the basis of an individual assessment of the asylum-seeker, considered in light of the general situation in the country of origin. To obtain asylum, an applicant must have a well-founded fear of persecution, in accordance with the Refugee Convention of 1951, and this must be supported by objective evidence. The Board attaches importance to whether the applicant can provide a credible account of his or her situation. It also studies reports which deal with the human rights situation in relevant countries. Background information is collated from various sources, including governmental, non-governmental and United Nations sources. Further, the Board considers the fact that a person may have been tortured in the past as a relevant but not necessarily decisive consideration in deciding whether to grant asylum. 4.5The State party submits that the complainant is seeking to have the Committee conduct a review of the relevant evidence supporting his claim for asylum, whereas it is well established that the Committee is not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body. The Review Board has had the benefit of direct contact with the complainant, and of reviewing all of the relevant evidence in detail. It has not found the complainant’s evidence to be credible, and finds no objective basis to fear that he will be subjected to torture if returned to Algeria. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence on article 3, which acknowledges that considerable weight should be given to the findings of fact made by government authorities. 4.6The State party argues that, in relation to a claim under article 3 of the Convention, the burden of proof is on the applicant to present an arguable case. It refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1, which states that for the purposes of assessing whether there are “substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture”, the risk of torture must be “assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or supposition”, although it does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable”. The applicant must establish that he would be in danger of being tortured, and that the danger is “personal and present”. 4.7The State party contends that the above is not born out in the present case. It notes that, according to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 and its case law, it is appropriate to take into account the complainant’s credibility and any discrepancies in his/her evidence. The State party addresses in some detail the various discrepancies in the complainant’s accounts of his experiences. For example, the complainant first stated that he flew to Moscow, then Berlin, and paid some friends to hide him in a freight lorry to Denmark. He later said that, after flying to Russia, he took a ferry first to Germany, and then to Denmark. As to his military service, the complainant stated in his asylum application that he was in the army from 1991 to 1994. However, in his interview with the DIS, he said he was in the army from 1990 to 1998. Further, the complainant first told the Danish authorities that he fled Algeria after being released from imprisonment and returning to the military, but subsequently stated that he fled the country directly from the military hospital. For the State party, such discrepancies cannot be described as minor; they are material discrepancies of fact which the Government is entitled to rely on in assessing credibility. 4.8The State party adds that at no time did the complainant raise any language difficulties with the authorities. He filled out his application form in Arabic, and could have done so in French if he had indicated such a preference. It also notes that the psychologist’s report was taken into account by the Refugee Board in its decision not to reopen the complainant’s case, and that it did not add new material or information. 4.9The State party states that it could not establish that the complainant had been subjected to torture, but that, according to the Committee’s case law, even if it had, this would be only one element in considering his case. And in this instance, particularly in view of the complainant’s lack of credibility, there was no evidence to suggest that he risked being subjected to torture if returned to