CAT/C/52/D/466/2011 5.15 In conclusion, the complainant submits that his return to Turkey constitutes a violation of article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention. First, by rejecting his asylum request on 26 June 2002 and 27 June 2011, without a medical examination, the Danish authorities failed to take into account all relevant considerations to determine the risk, for him, of being subjected to torture upon return to Turkey, in violation of article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Second, the denial of a medical examination in asylum cases and the refusal to allow evidence in the form of such an examination constitute a matter of concern in a number of cases filed against the State party.18 The complainant expresses hope that his case will clarify the State parties’ responsibility to consider such evidence, under paragraph 8 (a)–(e) of general comment No. 1. Lastly, he claims compensation for the suffering inflicted upon him due to his forcible deportation. Finally, counsel asks the Committee to clarify the complainant’s present situation with the Turkish authorities. State party’s further submissions 6. On 13 April 2012, the State party reiterated its previous observations and submitted further information concerning the complainant’s comments. In particular, it agrees with his argument that under the Refugee Convention, refugee status can be granted with reference to the applicant’s subjective fear without such fear being based on objective and ascertainable circumstances.19 The State party argues, however, that the application of the Refugee Convention does not fall within the Committee’s mandate and dismisses the complainant’s argument as irrelevant to the assessment of the risk under the Convention. It submits that the issue of subjective fear is based on the same account, evidence and facts as were previously presented to, and carefully considered by, the Danish authorities. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim 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. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the instant case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues, which should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to the admissibility and declares the communication admissible. Since both the State party and the complainant 18 19 12 Reference is made to communications No. 409/2009 and No. 460/2011, referred to above (discontinued further to the State party’s granting asylum to the complainants), No. 429/2010 Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, and No. 458/2011 (pending). Reference is made to the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva, 1992), paras. 37 ff.