CAT/C/55/D/555/2013 case, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the negative decision of the Danish Immigration Service based on a procedure in which the complainant had the opportunity to present his views to the Board with the assistance of legal counsel. The Board conducted a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case. For the reasons detailed above, the State party considers that the communication is without merit. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 In his comments dated 19 May 2014, the complainant provides additional information about his interviews with the Danish Immigration Service. He states that, as a victim of torture and having been detained for a long time, he refused to answer questions, and that the Danish Immigration Service rejected his asylum application on the ground that he had an obligation to provide information about his case. However, the complainant asserts that when his case was examined by the Danish Refugee Council under the procedure for manifestly unfounded cases, the Council gathered a large amount of information supporting his claims. Specifically, the Danish Refugee Council found that the complainant was a Uighur, cited numerous documents concerning the persecution of Uighurs in China, and found that the fact that he had left China illegally would be a problem for him upon return to the country. The complainant asserts that at appeal, the Refugee Appeals Board should have taken this information into account and should have allowed him an oral hearing and a medical examination for signs of torture. The complainant emphasizes that the core of his complaint is that the Refugee Appeals Board did not base its decision on all of the relevant facts, since it denied him the right to a medical examination and therefore failed to adequately explore whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he risks being subjected to torture if returned to China. He submits that he did not have the means to pay for a medical examination himself. 5.2 The complainant also criticizes specific observations made by the State party concerning alleged inconsistencies or implausible information in his account. Regarding his ethnicity, the complainant considers that it seems strange that according to the State party, he allegedly stated that he was of Han ethnicity at the same interview in which he allegedly refused to provide information about his case. With respect to his lack of political affiliation, the complainant claims that he also fears persecution on the grounds of ethnicity and religion. He submits that his case should not have been processed as a manifestly unfounded case, since he is missing three fingers, and because torture is widespread in China. He maintains that because he is missing two fingers from one hand and one finger from the other, it is highly improbable that the injury could be the result of a work-related accident, since such an accident would be likely to sever fingers from the same hand. He claims that he should have been given the benefit of the doubt. 5.3 The complainant also reiterates his comments regarding the procedural necessity of a medical examination for signs of torture and the possibility of review of a first instance asylum decision. He alleges that the denial of his right to have the Refugee Appeals Board decision reviewed is a major problem as far as fair trial is concerned, since the issue of evidence is central in most cases and the evidence in his case was not subjected to any review. The complainant submits that the need for review is even greater because only the Chairperson of the Refugee Appeals Board, as opposed to the entire Board, made the decision concerning his request for an oral hearing. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has 8