CAT/C/53/D/458/2011 Board, and that no request had been made by the complainant for a medical examination to be carried out by the State party (see para. 4.10). 6.6 The State party points out that the Refugee Appeals Board fully considered the complainant’s claim about the assaults against the Oromo population in Ethiopia in 2008. The Board specifically considered whether there was a risk of the complainant being subjected to outrages in her country owing to her ethnicity and came to the conclusion that there was no risk of persecution for the complainant on this ground. In that light, the Board decided to dismiss the complainant’s request for adjournment of the proceedings. Thus, the allegation of the complainant that the Board had given no reason for its refusal to adjourn the proceedings is not correct. 6.7 The State party disagrees with the complainant regarding the similarity between the case of Said Amini v. Denmark and the complainant’s case. The State party states that, unlike Said Amini, the complainant has developed her statements continuously during the proceedings up until the Board’s decision of 17 October 2008 and during the proceedings in connection with the request for reopening of the proceedings. The complainant’s statements have developed from not knowing what party her father was a member of to participating actively herself in the political work of the Oromo Liberation Front, having been imprisoned for several times and having been questioned and subjected to torture in that connection. Complainant’s further submission 7. On 15 September 2012, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s submission that the Amnesty International report of 2 June 2009 does not conclude that she had been subjected to the outrages claimed. The complainant argued that the report concluded that “The objective physical observations are comparable with the described forms of torture” and that her scars in particular “must be regarded as findings that greatly support [her] explanation”. The complainant further states that since the Amnesty International report concludes that she was a victim of torture, the State party should reopen the case.9 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 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, paragraph 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. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint 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 raised any concerns regarding the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies by the complainant. 9 The author refers to the communication of Senait Abreha v. Denmark, decision on discontinuance of 14 May 2012. In that case, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board had failed to perform a medical examination of alleged torture and the complainant had her asylum claim rejected. After that, the complainant obtained a medical report from Amnesty International and applied to the Committee, which granted provisional interim measures. The Danish Refugee Appeals Board reopened the case and subsequently granted asylum to the complainant. 9