CAT/C/46/D/352/2008 7.5 As to the State party’s contention that the complainant’s health problems had occurred after the rejection of his asylum request, counsel explains that a psychiatric doctor, M. E. B., has concluded that the complainant suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, as a consequence of serious torture. According to counsel, it is clear that the petitioner was depressed after the rejection of his asylum application and the treat of having to leave the country, without protection of not being subjected once more to torture. The State party, according to the counsel, did not pay sufficient attention to the report of the psychiatric expert. 7.6 On 12 February 2010, the complainant’s counsel provided the Committee with four reports prepared by medical doctors and the Swiss Red Cross (“Ambulatorim Für Folterund Kriegsopfer SRK”), in 2009-2010, concerning the complainant, and a medical doctor’s report of 2009 concerning his wife. The counsel explains that in 2008, the complainant started consulting the Ambulatorim Für Folter-und Kriegsopfer SRK, as his “psychic suffering was not anymore bearable to him and his family”. The complainant also suffered extreme pain in his genitals, burning and itching of his body, and headaches. The medical report of the Ambulatorim Für Folter-und Kriegsopfer SRK of 12 December 2009 states that the complainant suffered flashbacks due to the torture suffered. At the end of 2009, the complainant was treated in a psychiatric clinic (12 November 2009 – 7 January 2010). A report dated 1 January 2010, prepared in the clinic, states that the complainant suffered flashbacks due to the torture he had been subjected to, and that the petitioner had suicidal ideas. At times, he behaved very aggressively in the clinic and refused to interact with anyone. 7.7 According to counsel, the reading of the medical reports implied that the complainant also suffered “of other things as hopelessness, desperateness, problems to concentrate, nightmares, etc”.. In addition, he has a great fear of policemen. 7.8 The complainant’s counsel further notes that an urologist, Dr. G., did not find any problems in the complainant’s genitals. According to counsel, in his report of 14 September 2009, the urologist had expressed the view that the complainant was “a man destroyed by torture” and suggested that his pains had psychological rather than physical origins4. 7.9 The counsel contends that in light of this information, it is clear that the complainant’s problems are the result of past torture, and he and his family suffer from the present uncertain situation. The counsel also points out that the medical reports submitted are the result of emergency assistance. The medical doctors did not investigate the root causes of the complainant’s problems, but rather tried to provide him with temporary relief. In any event, the complainant has repeated to all the doctors that he had been subjected to torture in Turkey. As far as the complainant’s wife is concerned, a report of the Swiss Red Cross of 25 November 2010 states that she also suffers, because of the state of health of her husband, his aggressive behaviour, and the situation of uncertainty. Additional information from the State party 8.1 On 19 March 2010, the State party reiterated its previous position and reacted to counsel’s submission of 12 February 2010. It notes that, as far as the complainant’s pain in the genitals is concerned, the medical specialist examining the complainant has concluded that the latter does not suffer from injuries which could show that he had been subjected to ill-treatment. 4 It transpires from the documents on file, that Dr. G. was requested by the “Ambulatorim Für Folterund Kriegsopfer SRK”, Swiss Red Cross, to provide an opinion on the complainant’s case. 10