CAT/C/52/D/466/2011 Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, have not been incorporated into the domestic legislation, despite recommendations to that effect by the respective treaty bodies.14 5.5 The complainant further points out that no oral hearing regarding his counsel’s request for a medical examination took place. According to the complainant, the Danish authorities did not find that his claim regarding his past detention and torture by the Turkish authorities, and his reference to the Committee’s recent case law regarding Turkey, constituted a sufficient ground to conduct a medical examination for torture. The Danish authorities did not apply any special treatment in his regard and, furthermore, put him in a closed detention camp pending deportation. According to the complainant, in cases where torture is invoked in an asylum claim, the authorities should seek the asylum seeker’s agreement to undergo a medical examination, to support his or her allegations of torture. The authorities did not seek such an agreement from the complainant, although he was willing to undergo a medical examination. 5.6 The complainant reiterates that asylum should be granted to victims of past torture, regardless of the risk that they would be subjected to torture upon return to their country of origin. In that connection, a medical examination is the only way to prove past torture. He acknowledges that he did not appear not credible throughout the proceedings and that the Appeals Board rejected his torture claim altogether. He claims, however, that although the Board “did not directly reject” his statement about the imprisonment and torture, it did not explain its doubts to that effect but, instead, “jumped to the conclusion that there is no risk of torture upon return”. 5.7 He further claims that the test used by the Appeals Board to opt or not for a medical examination is difficult to understand. He assumes that he did not fulfil the test requirements. At the same time, he claims that the absence of the risk, for him, of being subjected to torture if expelled from Denmark, cannot be based solely on his submissions about the trip to Greece and the return to Turkey, as those submissions, in themselves, do not permit to establish that he was not tortured at the hands of the Turkish authorities. According to general comment No. 1, the complainant’s credibility is only one element among many others in an assessment of the risk of torture upon return. In his circumstances, a medical examination was necessary, in particular, in the light of the State party’s obligation under article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, to take into account all relevant considerations to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture in the country of origin. 5.8 The complainant disagrees with the State party’s argument that his communication is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. He states that Turkey is a country where gross, flagrant and mass violations of human rights occur, which is confirmed by the Committee’s recent concluding observations on Turkey.15 The State party has not directly denied that he was imprisoned and subjected to violence at the hands of the Turkish authorities. A medical examination should have been conducted to clarify inconsistencies in his case. Therefore, the Committee should declare his case admissible and review it on the merits. 14 15 10 Reference is made to the concluding observations issued by various Committees for Denmark: CAT/C/DNK/CO/5, para. 9; CCPR/C/DNK/CO/5, para. 6; CEDAW/C/DEN/CO/7, para. 14; CERD/C/DNK/CO/18-19, para. 8; and CRC/C/DNK/CO/4, para. 11. The complainant adds that, as a consequence, the legal status of the decisions of the Committee against Torture in connection with individual complaints is uncertain and the State party is reluctant to implement the Committee’s views. CAT/C/TUR/CO/3.