CAT/C/70/D/743/2016 Complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his initial communication remains valid. Even if the Refugee Appeals Board reopened the case and invited the complainant to a hearing, no medical examination on torture was ever ordered by the State party, despite the report by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group concerning his past torture. In violation of article 3 of the Convention, the Board has refused to take into consideration the conclusions of the Amnesty International report. 3.2 The complainant believes that, as in the cases of Oberschlick v. Austria, in which the European Court of Human Rights delivered two decisions, 3 the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 17 March 2016 in his case constitutes a new decision, requiring a new decision by the Committee. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 The State party provided its observations on admissibility in a note verbale dated 28 June 2016. It notes that in the present case, unlike in the case of communication No. 580/2014, the complainant does not invoke articles 12 and 16 of the Convention. The State party believes that the communication should be declared inadmissible as the same matter has already been examined by the Committee. 4.2 The State party recalls the facts of the case. The complainant, a Turkish national, entered Denmark in November 2010 without valid travel documents. He was arrested by the police on 4 February 2012 for being in possession of controlled substances and surrendering incorrect information about his identity, and, on 11 December 2012, was given a suspended sentence of 40 days’ imprisonment. His expulsion from Denmark was ordered as a result, with a ban on re-entry for six years. 4.3 On 13 November 2012, the complainant applied for asylum. On 31 May 2013, the Danish Immigration Service, rejected his application. On 30 August 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the refusal of the Danish Immigration Service to grant him asylum. On 19 December 2013, the complainant applied to the Committee (communication No. 580/2014). On 18 September 2015, the Board refused to reopen the case. 4.4 The Committee adopted its decision concerning communication No. 580/2014 on 23 November 2015. On 28 December 2015, the complainant requested the Refugee Appeals Board to reopen his case on the basis of the Committee’s decision. On 7 January 2016, the Board decided to reopen the case for a review at an oral hearing and to maintain the suspension of the time limit for the complainant’s departure. 4.5 On 17 March 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the refusal of the complainant’s application for asylum. 4.6 On 1 April 2016, the complainant applied to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that his return to Turkey would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). On 5 April 2016, the Court rejected the application for non-conformity with articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 4.7 On 15 April 2016, the complainant submitted the present case to the Committee, claiming that his forcible return to Turkey would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 4.8 On 10 May 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board suspended the time limit for the complainant’s departure from Denmark pending the Committee’s consideration of the complaint submitted on 15 April 2016. On 27 June 2016, the Board decided that there was no basis for further suspension of the time limit for the complainant’s departure, and informed the complainant’s counsel of the following: 3 4 European Court of Human Rights, Oberschlick v. Austria, applications No. 19255/92 and No. 21655/93.