Two statements are given below, followed by three conclusions: I, II, and III. Decide which of the conclusions logically follows from the statements.
Statement 1: Every man should have his identity card with him.
Statement 2: That card should mention his blood group, complete address, and telephone number for contact, in case of emergencies.
Conclusion I: Blood CANNOT be transfused until its group is mentioned in the card.
Conclusion II: No one is supposed to forget his phone number under any circumstances.
Conclusion III: The police need this information if the injury is fatal.

Let's assess each conclusion strictly matching the parameters of the provided statements:
* Conclusion I states an absolute medical restriction ("cannot be transfused") which is not mentioned or implied anywhere in the statement. The card contains blood group details to save time during emergencies, not as an exclusive legal ban mechanism.
* Conclusion II makes an extreme claim about human memory constraints ("no one is supposed to forget") which is completely outside the scope of the identity card's utility parameters.
* Conclusion III mentions a specific administrative hypothesis ("the police need this information") which is an assumption. The statement mentions general emergency contacts, not a specific law enforcement rule directive.
Hence, none of the conclusions logically follow directly from the given statements.