CAT/C/70/D/743/2016 9.4 The Committee has noted the State party’s observation that in this case, the complainant repeats the allegations regarding his past political activities in Turkey that he made in his communication No. 580/2014, and he reiterates the information that he was subjected to torture in Turkey. The complainant provides no new information in his communication submitted on 15 April 2016, but relies on the same grounds as in communication No. 580/2014. The State party emphasizes that following the adoption by the Committee, on 23 November 2015, of its decision concerning communication No. 580/2014, the complainant’s asylum case was reopened. The case was reconsidered by the Refugee Appeals Board on 14 March 2016, at an oral hearing, based, inter alia, on the report on the medical examination by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group and the Committee’s decision concerning communication No. 580/2014. In its decision of 17 March 2016, the Board found that the complainant had failed to substantiate his grounds for asylum, and his request for a residence permit was rejected. The State party considers that the Board has given full consideration to the Committee’s decision of 23 November 2015. Accordingly, and since the complainant has submitted no new information, the present communication, in the State party’s opinion, should be deemed inadmissible. 9.5 The Committee notes that the subject of the present communication – the risk for the complainant of his deportation to Turkey – constituted the object of consideration in communication No. 580/2014, concerning which the Committee concluded that the deportation of the complainant would breach the State’s party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its decision concerning communication No. 580/2014, it considered that, by rejecting the complainant’s asylum application without ordering a medical examination in the light of the report by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, the State party had failed to sufficiently investigate whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey. As such, the Committee considered that the deportation of the complainant to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee also took the view that the State party had violated the requirements of articles 12, read in conjunction with article 16, of the Convention, not invoked in the present case. 9.6 The Committee is satisfied that of the State party has given due consideration to the Committee’s decision concerning communication No. 580/2014, and that the complainant’s asylum case was reopened and reconsidered by the Refugee Appeals Board on the basis of the Committee’s decision and taking into account of the conclusions of the medical report by Amnesty International Danish Medical Group dated 25 September 2014. The Committee notes, in this context, that both the complainant and his lawyer were given an opportunity to provide information and clarifications to the Danish asylum authorities. 9.7 The Committee further notes the complainant’s objection that even if the Refugee Appeals Board did reopen the case and did invite him to a hearing, no medical examination on torture was ever ordered, despite the report by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group on past torture. 9.8 The Committee considers that, from the documents on file, it transpires that the Refugee Appeals Board has given due consideration to the conclusions of the report by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, which revealed a number of contradictions with the complainant’s statements given throughout the asylum proceedings. The Committee notes that from the material on file, it cannot conclude that, in the present case, the Board has acted in a biased manner, or in a manner constituting otherwise a denial of justice. The Committee also observes in this connection that the complainant has not referred to any such misconduct; rather, he tends to disagree with the Board’s conclusions, seeking, for instance, their review. 9.9 The Committee has noted the contention by the complainant’s counsel that the complainant informed him that upon deportation, he was tortured by the police in Turkey. The Committee notes that no further information or explanation in support of this claim has been provided, in particular the identity of those responsible for the complainant’s illtreatment, the location in which the alleged torture took place, or details regarding the method of torture and its intensity or of other ill-treatment inflicted. Following the deportation of the complainant, his counsel submitted a copy of a summary medical certificate, dated 27 January 2020, according to which a medical examination of the complainant had shown that 11