CAT/C/70/D/743/2016 The [Refugee Appeals Board] has now had the opportunity to consider the admissibility and merits of the complaint. Consequently today the Board has forwarded to the Ministry of Justice its contribution to the Government’s observations to the Committee from which it appears, inter alia, that, in the opinion of the Board, your client’s new complaint to the Committee should be considered inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. Accordingly, the Board finds no basis for continuing the suspension of the time limit for your client’s departure. Your client must therefore leave Denmark immediately upon service of the decision terminating the suspension of the time limit for departure. As appears from the decision of the [Board] of 17 March 2016, your client may be forcibly returned to Turkey if he does not leave voluntarily. 4.9 The State party notes that in his complaint to the Committee, the complainant claims that Denmark would breach article 3 of the Convention in case of his forcible removal. He repeats the allegations regarding his past political activities in Turkey that he made in his communication No. 580/2014, and the information that he was subjected to torture in Turkey. He provides no new information in his communication submitted on 15 April 2016, but relies on the same grounds as in communication No. 580/2014. 4.10 In the context of communication No. 580/2014, the complainant produced a report prepared by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, dated 25 September 2014. The complainant reiterates that he has never been subjected to a medical examination for signs of torture by the State party. He claims a violation of article 3 of the Convention, based on the Refugee Appeals Board’s rejection of the conclusions of the report by Amnesty International, its refusal to order a medical examination of the complainant and its rejection of the complainant’s asylum application. According to the complainant, if the Board had wanted to contest the findings of the Amnesty International report, the Board should have ordered a medical examination. He claims that the State party failed to fulfil its obligations to carry out a medical examination by merely summoning him to an oral hearing. The complainant further claims that at the hearing before the Board on 14 March 2016, members of the Board asked him only a few questions, unrelated to the Amnesty International report. 4.11 The State party notes that in the Committee’s decision of 20 May 2005 concerning Agiza v. Sweden (CAT/C/34/D/233/2003), the Committee considered whether a complaint submitted to it was a simple resubmission of an already decided issue, thus constituting an abuse of process under article 22 (2) of the Convention and the equivalent of rule 113, paragraph (b), of the Committee’s rules of procedures. Since the complaints related to two different persons, the Committee decided that they were not of an essentially identical nature and therefore did not consider the second complaint to constitute an abuse of the right of submission. In the present case, however, the complaint is of an essentially identical nature to the previous complaint. The case relates to the same party as in communication No. 580/2014 and to the same substantive rights, under article 3 of the Convention. Regarding the facts of the case, the State party notes that in both cases, the complainant has relied on the same information on his situation in Turkey during the period 2006–2010. No substantial new information has been provided in the present case beyond that already available in the context of communication No. 580/2014. The present communication should thus be declared inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113, paragraph (b), of the Committee’s rules of procedures. 4.12 Following the complainant’s appearance on two occasions before the Refugee Appeals Board, the Board dismissed in their entirety the complainant’s statements regarding his political activities and the resulting abuse and torture. In this connection, the Board took into consideration the Committee’s decision of 23 November 2015 concerning communication No. 580/2014. 4.13 The State party considers that the Committee is not better placed to assess evidence than the national migration authorities, which have heard the statements made by the complainant in person. The Committee should rely on the assessment of evidence by the Refugee Appeals Board unless exceptional circumstances apply. In its decision of 17 March 2016, the Board found as follows regarding the possibility of a new medical examination: 5