CAT/C/52/D/466/2011 5.9 The complainant argues that the inconsistencies in his submissions to the Danish asylum authorities were minor and, therefore, irrelevant to the consideration of his asylum claim. He initially withheld information about his residence in Romania as he did not want to be returned to that country, where he did not feel safe because the Turkish authorities had located him there. He disagrees with the State party’s argument that his removal to Turkey, despite him having been recognized as a refugee in Romania, would not be sufficient grounds to find a violation of article 3 of the Convention. He also rejects the State party’s argument that his alleged torture in prison between 1983 and 1991 is not a sufficient ground for obtaining asylum. In connection with the refusal of the Danish authorities to conduct a medical examination for torture, he claims that the State party has failed to analyse his claim under paragraph 8 (b)–(e) of general comment No. 1. His recognition as a refugee in Romania, on account of a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey, should lead to his recognition as a refugee in Denmark. 5.10 The complainant reiterates that communications No. 373/2009 and No. 349/2008 are relevant to his case. Although he was not a PKK member, he was politically involved; nevertheless, the State party has not mentioned paragraph 8 (e) of general comment No. 1 in its assessment of the risk of torture upon return to Turkey. Those communications are also relevant in terms of paragraph 8 (a) of general comment No. 1, because they contain the Committee’s analysis of the human rights situation in Turkey, which is characterized by persistent gross and flagrant human rights violations. He further refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on Turkey16 to underline that torture is a major problem in Turkish prisons, and that, this notwithstanding, the concluding observations were not included in the background material on the country collected by the Appeals Board. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that only PKK members, persecuted under the Turkish Anti-Terrorism Law, are subjected to torture in Turkey. 5.11 Furthermore, communications No. 409/2009 and No. 460/2011 illustrate, according to the complainant, how the Danish authorities neglected their responsibility to allow a medical examination for persons who had been subjected to torture in countries with a pattern of gross, flagrant and mass human rights violations, before rejecting their asylum requests. 5.12 The complainant argues that the Appeals Board has a duty to issue an explicit decision as to whether it has accepted as true that he was tortured before having fled Turkey. No such decision was made in his case, despite the fact that his claim of torture has paramount importance for the assessment under paragraph 8 (b) and (c) of general comment No. 1. His case is thus similar to communication No. 339/2008, whereby the Committee established that the State party had never denied that the complainant, a politically involved Iranian national, had been tortured in the past, and found a violation of article 3 of the Convention on account of his forced removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran.17 5.13 The complainant believes that the State party’s observations on the merits must be refuted, because they contain no mention of the grounds listed in paragraph 8 (a)–(g) of general comment No. 1. 5.14 The complainant’s counsel submits that, according to family members, the complainant was detained after his arrival in Turkey. As at 16 March 2014, counsel did not have information as to whether or when he would be released. He fears that the complainant could be subjected to torture in detention. 16 17 Ibid., paras. 7–13. Communication No. 339/2008, Amini v. Denmark, decision adopted on 15 November 2010. 11