CAT/C/57/D/593/2014 them on 2 March 2011. The Board also stated in its decision that the complainants had applied for asylum only after being arrested on 2 January 2013. Moreover, the Board emphasized that the complainants had stayed in Romania for long periods of time since initially reporting their problems in 2001. 4.6 As indicated in the submissions, the criminal case against the complainants was adjudicated by several judicial instances in Romania. The complainants were present during those hearings, and were represented by lawyers. The notion that the outcome of the criminal case was the result of corruption, in full or in part, is based solely on the complainants’ assumptions. 4.7 The State party therefore claims that the complainants failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility. It has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants are in danger of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if they are returned to Romania. 4.8 The State party relies entirely on the Refugee Appeals Board decision of 25 February 2014, in which the Board gave a thorough account of facts and assessed the evidence presented. The complainants also had an opportunity to argue their case both in writing and orally in front of the Board, with the assistance of counsel. The State party further submits that the fact that I.M. has obtained asylum in Canada does not lead to a different assessment of the facts at stake. 4.9 The State party submits that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility and that the communication is therefore manifestly illfounded and should be declared inadmissible. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 30 December 2014, in reply to the State party’s observations, the complainants submitted that they remained at risk of torture if returned to Romania. The fear of persecution was well grounded, given the fact that I.M. had already received protected status in Canada. I.M. had to travel back to Romania “in order to rescue” V.Z. from persecution in Romania and take him with her to Canada. 5.2 The complainants further submitted that the initial request by the authorities of Romania to extradite the couple had been denied by the Ministry of Justice of Denmark on 14 February 2013. Nevertheless, the complainants had been arrested and had to seek asylum in order to avoid being extradited to Romania. The complainants did not seek to stay in Denmark; their intention was to depart for Canada as soon as they could. 5.3 The Danish Immigration Service had rejected their asylum application as manifestly unfounded. The Refugee Appeals Board had upheld that decision, stating that widespread corruption might have influenced the outcome of the criminal case against the complainants. 5.4 The mere fact that I.M. had already received international protection under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees meant that the authorities in Canada had made a finding of an established fear of persecution. There was no question that, upon return to Romania, the complainants would be placed in detention. The conditions of detention, as stated before, violated the requirements of article 3 of the Convention. 5.5 The Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board had failed to make a risk assessment as required by general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention. There had been a pattern of gross, flagrant and mass violations of human rights in Romania. Especially with regards to prison conditions in Romania, there 6