CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 soles of the feet with a Tommy and being doused with cold water from a pressure washer, on occasions until he threw up blood and lost consciousness; and that, on one occasion, he was held in isolation in a cell with speakers installed, through which he was told that his mother was in the next cell and would be tortured. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s claim that, during a celebration of the Kurdish national day, he was pushed into a police officer carrying a shield, was thrown on the ground, broke his left arm and was detained on the spot, and that his broken arm was not medically treated. 7.6 The Committee recalls that, although it is for the complainant to establish a prima facie case for an asylum request, 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. 17 The Committee considers that, although the complainant did not provide documentary evidence to support his asylum application, the subsequent medical torture examination provided by Amnesty International constituted evidence in support of a crucial element of his claim. Accordingly, the Committee considers that, while the State party has raised serious credibility concerns, it drew an adverse credibility conclusion without adequately exploring a fundamental aspect of the complainant’s claim. The Committee therefore considers that, by rejecting the complainant’s asylum application without ordering a medical examination, the State party failed to sufficiently investigate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey. As such, the Committee considers that, in the circumstances, the deportation of the complainant to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 7.7 With regard to the complainant’s claim under articles 12 and 16 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that, while imprisoned, on 18 December 2013, he suffered acts of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the Danish prison and police authorities who attempted to take him forcibly to the Turkish Embassy. It further notes that the exact circumstances of the incident and the intensity of the force used are disputed by the parties. The Committee observes that, according to the State party’s submission, when the police officers showed up to take the complainant to the Turkish Embassy, prison officers had to bring him, presumably by force, from his cell, since he would not voluntarily come along and that, at that point, he was naked from the waist up and had several bleeding cuts on his left forearm and his stomach. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that a criminal investigation must seek both to determine the nature and circumstances of the alleged acts and to establish the identity of any person who might have been involved therein.18 In the present case, the Committee notes that, despite the appearance of the complainant clearly showing that he had been injured and despite his subsequent complaints, no investigation appears to have been initiated into the events. On the contrary, the police accepted at face value the explanation that the complainant had hurt himself, no medical examination was conducted and the police officers proceeded with his forcible delivery to the Turkish Embassy. In those circumstances, the Committee is of the view that the authorities of the State party violated the requirements of article 12, read in conjunction with article 16, of the Convention. 8. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the State party has an obligation, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, to refrain from forcibly returning the complainant to Turkey or to any 17 18 14 See, inter alia, communication No. 464/2011, K.H. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2012, para. 8.8. See, inter alia, communications No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, and No. 161/2000, Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 9.4.