CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 5.5 The complainant also reiterates his comments regarding the lack of possibility of review of a first-instance asylum decision. He reiterates that a decision by the Board cannot be appealed to the ordinary Danish Courts, which is a major fair trial problem for torture victims. He further states that, in order to enjoy the benefit of the doubt, a medical torture examination is a precondition to establish whether the complainant is a torture survivor. Since the majority of the Board members rejected his credibility and did not give him the benefit of the doubt, the Danish authorities should change their practice to allow more torture examinations to take place. 5.6 The complainant challenges the State party’s observations on the admissibility, stating that, with reference to the medical torture examination report from Amnesty International and the Committee’s most recent concluding observations on Turkey, the communication is well founded and admissible with regard to article 3 of the Convention. He agrees with the State party’s observation that the Committee is used as an appellate body as, under Danish law, it is not possible to appeal the Refugee Appeals Board decisions, even in cases like the present one, in which the Board split into three different groups in the decision-making process. The complainant argues that the Committee should not give weight to the findings of the majority of the Board members since those findings were not based on a medical torture examination. With regard to articles 12 and 16 of the Convention, the complainant contests the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. To that end, he submits a translation in English of his complaint dated 30 December 2013 about violations of articles 12 and 16 of the Convention. 5.7 As to the merits, the complainant reiterates with regard to article 3 of the Convention the same facts stated in the initial communication, notably the past instances of torture, based on the torture examination report and the background information about the use of torture in Turkey. He argues that he is running a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture on return, because of his involvement with Kurdish organizations before fleeing and because he is known to the Turkish authorities. He further states that, on 2 October 2014, the Turkish Parliament extended the validity of the decision that Turkish forces can cross the border to the Syrian Arab Republic and Iraq and fight against the Kurdish groups in those countries. If returned to Turkey he would be obliged to serve in the army, which he would have to refuse to do. According to the majority of the Refugee Appeals Board members, the sentence he would receive for not performing military service is not a disproportionate sanction. The complainant claims he does not fear the prison sentence for refusing military service but the torture and inhuman treatment that he will suffer in prison as a young Kurdish with former ties to Kurdish organizations. He also fears that the Turkish Embassy has carried out surveillance of him in Denmark and already have him on file. 5.8 Regarding articles 12 and 16 of the Convention, the complainant reiterates he was attacked in his cell by several prison guards, forced to the floor and handcuffed on his back while he was naked and bleeding from his self-inflicted wounds. As the police refused to take him in the car naked and bleeding, he was brought back to his cell where the prison guards dressed him in a sweater and handcuffed him again. The complainant claims this amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment of a survivor of torture and has not been investigated by the Danish authorities. On the contrary, they deny any wrongdoing and the complainant’s appeal to the Danish Supreme Court of the High Court decision was not allowed. 11