CAT/C/52/D/466/2011 The complaint 3.1 The complainant argues that his forcible return to Turkey constitutes a breach by Denmark of its obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. He claims that he has established a prima facie case before the Committee, as he was granted refugee status because there is a risk of him being subjected to persecution in his country of origin. He adds that reports of international organizations demonstrate that the human rights situation in Turkey is in violation of the Convention. Even if the general situation in the country has changed since his departure in 1994, the situation of politically active Kurds remains difficult.8 Although the Danish authorities questioned his credibility, they have not contested his past torture and imprisonment in Turkey. He explains the absence of medical documents in support of his torture claim by the failure of the Danish authorities to conduct a medical examination.9 He emphasizes that he has been politically active since the 1980s and will have to serve the remaining 12 years’ imprisonment upon his return to Turkey. 3.2 The complainant also claims a violation of his rights under article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention owing to the lack of investigation into his case by the Danish authorities, notably their failure to conduct a medical examination, and the lack of reasoning regarding the risk of torture, if returned to Turkey, in the decisions of the Appeals Board. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 3 January 2012, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and merits. It contends that the claim under article 3 should be declared inadmissible, since the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case, for purposes of admissibility under article 22 of the Convention and rule 107 of the Committee’s rules of procedure ().10 In the alternative, the State party submits that no violation of article 3 of the Convention occurred in relation to the merits of the case. 4.2 The State party recalls the facts of the case. As to the domestic asylum proceedings, it submits that the complainant entered Denmark without valid travel documents, on 11 March 2001, and applied for asylum on 19 March 2001. On 26 June 2002, the Danish Immigration Service rejected his application; the decision was upheld by the Appeals Board on 8 November 2002. On 5 April 2006, the Appeals Board decided to reopen the proceedings in the light of information from UNHCR. On 28 June 2006, the Appeals Board again upheld the decision of 26 June 2002. On 4 July 2007, the complainant’s brother and sister-in-law requested that the proceedings be reopened. On 27 September 2007, the Appeals Board informed the complainant that the request for reopening could not be considered as the Board was unaware of his place of residence. On 16 June 2011, the complainant’s counsel requested a reopening of the proceedings,11 which was denied by the Appeals Board on 27 June 2011. 8 9 10 11 6 cases), whereby the State party did not contest admissibility on account of non-exhaustion. Reference is made to communications No. 373/2009, Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden, decision adopted on 19 November 2010; and No. 349/2008, Güclü v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 November 2010. Reference is made to two communications against Denmark, No. 409/2009, discontinued on 11 November 2010, and No. 460/2011, discontinued on 14 May 2012, in which the complainants, who had allegedly been subjected to torture in their countries of origin, were not initially allowed to undergo a medical examination; the Danish Appeals Board decided to reopen those cases and grant asylum to the complainants after the registration of the cases by the Committee. CAT/C/3/Rev.4 (now rule 113, CAT/C/3/Rev.6). As per his request of 16 June 2011, the counsel contested the failure of the authorities to conduct a medical examination.