CAT/C/55/D/571/2013 5.7 The complainant also maintains that he did establish a prima facie case for the admissibility of his communication. He recalls that his statement — considered in the light of his individual circumstances as a victim of kidnapping and serious ill-treatment and the fact that he is illiterate — together with relevant background information about the situation in Afghanistan provide substantial grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion for determining that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture in Afghanistan. In particular, the complainant notes that no medical evidence was sought to support his claim that he had been subjected to torture, as the Danish Appeals Board denied him access to relevant medical examinations.20 5.8 The complainant requests that the Committee find the communication admissible for consideration by the Committee in order to assess the Danish Immigration Authorities’ interpretation of the principle of “benefit of the doubt” and to assess the extent to which necessary consideration is given to, for example, people who are illiterate and victims of torture. 5.9 The complainant contends that the Danish Appeals Board did not adequately take into account his particular situation, including the fact that he is illiterate and a victim of torture, who cannot always be expected to relate the facts in the same way as individuals who have not been subjected to torture. The complainant also contends that the Appeals Board did not adequately consider the cultural differences with regard to the role of women in Afghan society and the information that his spouse was expected to know about him, and that the frequency and character of the somewhat sceptical questions put to him throughout the asylum proceedings did not take into consideration the fact that he had been subjected to serious and repeated ill-treatment. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It therefore concludes that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication is inadmissible as the complainant’s claims are manifestly ill-founded. The Committee, however, considers that the communication has been adequately substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 20 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1, para. 8 (c). 13