CAT/C/60/D/602/2014 A.F., on his arrival at Khartoum Airport, would attract the unfavourable attention of the authorities on account of the few years he had spent abroad. 17 The complainant maintains that he has also spent a long time abroad and would attract attention if he returned, which would immediately reveal his scars resulting from the torture he had suffered. The above would allow the Sudanese police and security service to understand that he was one of their former “clients”. Consequently, he would be subjected to interrogation and most likely tortured. The complainant submits a photograph of his scars in support. 5.7 The complainant maintains that the Committee’s general comment No. 1 clearly indicates that the State party, aware of gross human rights violations in the country of origin, must establish whether the asylum seeker suffered torture before fleeing. This is a crucial element in the assessment of whether the complainant would also face torture on return. The State party seems to have taken the (incorrect) position that it was not obliged to establish whether the complainant was in fact tortured before fleeing, in order to assess the future risk of torture upon return. Consequently, the complainant argues that, with regard to the merits of the case, the majority of members of the Refugee Appeals Board who had rejected the possibility of a medical examination before rejecting the complainant’s claim for asylum had violated the “procedural aspects” of article 3. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In a submission dated 10 June 2016, the State party submits in response to the complainant’s comments of 21 January 2016 that it maintains its observations of 17 November 2014. It further submits that, as appears from the decision made by the Refugee Appeals Board, the majority of its members “could not find as facts the complainant’s statement” that he was detained in April 2007 and tortured by persons having ties with the Sudanese authorities because of his brother’s involvement with the Justice and Equality Movement. In this respect, the majority of Board members emphasized the fact that the complainant had made augmentative and inconsistent statements relating to essential elements of his grounds for asylum, and that he and his partner had made inconsistent statements about the reason for their departure from the Sudan (see paras. 4.3 and 4.4 above). 6.2 The State party submits that the case file concerning the complainant’s partner, whom the complainant met in 2006 in the Sudan and with whom he cohabited at the time of their departure from the Sudan in 2007, was taken into account in the examination of the complainant’s application for asylum and was accordingly included in the basis of the decisions made in the case by the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board. The State party confirms the complainant’s submission with regard to his partner’s asylum proceedings and the fact that, on 25 April 2012, the Refugee Appeals Board had granted residence to her under section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, taking into account her illegal departure from Eritrea, her long-term stay abroad and her evasion of military service. It further appeared from the case file relating to the application for asylum lodged by the complainant’s partner that she had stated, when interviewed by the Danish Immigration Service on 14 December 2009, that the complainant had not completed his compulsory military service and had therefore been arrested at his parent’s home, that he had escaped after 14 days in prison and that the couple had then left the Sudan. However, from the case file relating to the complainant’s application for asylum, it appeared that he had stated at the asylum interview on 17 January 2014 that he had told his partner that he had been arrested because of his brother’s involvement with the Justice and Equality Movement and that he believed that his partner had not told the Danish Immigration Service so because it was not her problem. The complainant also stated that his partner might need a psychologist and did not speak very clearly. At the hearing before the Board on 23 April 2014, the complainant was asked to explain the fact that his partner had said during her asylum proceedings that the complainant had had to leave his country of origin because of his military service. The complainant responded that his partner was not proficient in Arabic and that he had not wanted her to know the full truth. The State party has considered 17 See press release issued by the Registrar of the Court, Deportation of two Sudanese nationals living in France to their country of origin would entail a violation of the Convention, 15 January 2015. 7