CAT/C/49/D/464/2011 complainant was able to live in Afghanistan for at least one year without any further problem or need of special protection. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of his claims to the effect that he would be exposed to a real and personal risk of torture by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan. 8.8 The Committee observes that in the interviews before the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board, the complainant, who is illiterate, provided inconsistent statements as to his place of origin, the circumstances in which he was detained by the Afghan police, and his escape from prison; that the interviews were held with the assistance of an interpreter to and from Pashto; and that the complainant tried to clarify his statements following questions during the Board hearing. The Committee also notes that on 10 January 2011 and during the Board hearing of 17 January 2011, the complainant requested a specialized medical examination and argued that he lacked financial means to pay for an examination himself. The Committee further observes that the complainant’s allegation that he showed to the Board sequelae of the violence inflicted by the Afghan authorities on his hands and one leg or foot was not contested by the State party. The Committee considers that although it is for the complainant to establish a prima facie case to request for asylum, it does not exempt the State party from making substantial efforts to determine whether there are grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the complainant provided the State party’s authorities with sufficient material supporting his claims of having been subjected to torture, including two medical memoranda, to seek further investigation on the claims through, inter alia, a specialized medical examination. Therefore, the Committee concludes that by rejecting the complainant’s asylum request without seeking further investigation on his claims or ordering a medical examination, the State party has failed to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that, in the circumstances, the deportation of the complainant to his country of origin would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 10. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in accordance with the above observations. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 13