CAT/C/49/D/464/2011 Bora. Confronted with his previous statement, he submitted that Chaparhar and Tora Bora were close to each other. Likewise, he was confronted with his previous inconsistent statements concerning the conditions for his release. He told the authorities that the police was afraid that he would tell someone about the bribe. For this reason the chief of police required him to leave the country. 4.6 In the asylum registration report, the complainant stated that his lowest ribs had been bruised two years before and that he was waiting for a medical examination. Otherwise, his health was good. At the interview with the Immigration Service on 21 October 2010, he asserted that in Denmark he was being treated for stomach complaints. In the pleading of 10 January 2011 submitted before the Refugee Appeals Board hearing, his counsel requested a stay of proceedings to allow the complainant to be examined for signs of torture and appended two memoranda dated 11 October and 13 December 2010, prepared by a medical consultant. At the Board hearing in 17 January 2011, the complainant repeated his statements and informed the Board that doctors in Denmark could not perform surgery on his ribs and he therefore took painkillers. He also took medication because he had nightmares. 4.7 Concerning its national legislation, the State party notes that pursuant to section 7, paragraph 1, of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be granted to an alien if the person falls within the provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. For this purpose, article 1.A of that Convention has been incorporated into Danish law. Although this article does not mention torture as one of the grounds justifying asylum, it may be an element of persecution. Accordingly, a residence permit can be granted in cases where it is found that the asylum seeker has been subjected to torture before coming to the State party, and where his substantial fear resulting from the outrages is considered well-founded. This permit is granted even if a possible return is not considered to entail any risk of further persecution. Likewise, pursuant to section 7, paragraph 2, of the Aliens Act, a residence permit can be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his country of origin. In practice, the Refugee Appeals Board considers that these conditions are met if there are specific and individual factors rendering it probable that the person will be exposed to a real risk. 4.8 Decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are based on an individual and specific assessment of the case. The asylum seeker’s statements regarding asylum motive are assessed in the light of all relevant evidence, including general background material on the situation and conditions in the country of origin, in particular, whether systematic gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights occur. Background material is obtained from various sources, including country reports prepared by other Governments as well as information available from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and prominent non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 4.9 In cases where torture is invoked as part of the basis for asylum, the Refugee Appeals Board may request the asylum seeker to be examined for signs of torture. The decision as to whether it is necessary to undertake a medical examination is made at a Board hearing and depends on the circumstances of the specific case, such as the credibility of the asylum seeker’s statement about torture. 4.10 The State party submits that it is the responsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of the complaint under article 22 of the Convention. In the present complaint, it has not been established that there is substantial ground for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Afghanistan. The complaint is manifestly unfounded and, therefore, it should be declared inadmissible. 6