CAT/C/61/D/625/2014 8.6 The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s claim that, although he showed the Board the alleged signs of torture on his body and requested that the Board carry out a specialized medical examination in order to verify whether those injuries were sustained as a result of torture, the Board rejected his request for asylum without ordering such an examination. It also notes the State party’s argument that such an examination was not relevant because, whatever its outcome, it could not serve to prove that the complainant had been subjected to abuse because of his activities for the Christian organization Jesus Hope for Life and that such an examination would not demonstrate that the risk for the complainant in Pakistan would be personal and real at the present time. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the medical certificate submitted by the complainant does not substantiate that he is a victim of torture, as the injuries described could be the result of torture or “of many other causes, such as an accident or war”. 8.7 The Committee observes that it is not disputed that the complainant was detained by the police in Pakistan, subjected to violence and accused of illegal possession of alcohol. 52 The Committee also notes that the Board considered that, although the complainant made consistent statements regarding the events claimed as his grounds for asylum, in his interviews before the Immigration Service and the Board, he provided inconsistent statements as to the threatening letter dated 15 January 2010, including as to who signed it and as to the way in which he obtained it. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that he has indicated to the authorities of the State party that he could not remember many events clearly because of the blow he suffered to the head while being tortured, and that he should therefore have benefited from a different standard of proof. 53 8.8 The Committee recalls that, although it is for the complainant to establish a prima facie case to request asylum, it does not exempt the State party from making substantial efforts to determine whether there are grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned. 54 In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the complainant provided the State party’s authorities with sufficient material to support his claims of having been subjected to torture, including a medical report, 55 and for them to further investigate his claims through, inter alia, a specialized medical examination. Therefore, the Committee concludes that by rejecting the complainant’s asylum request without further investigation of his claims or ordering a medical examination, the State party has failed to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned. Accordingly, the Committee considers that, in the circumstances, the deportation of the complainant to his country of origin would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.56 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Pakistan by the State party would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations. 52 53 54 55 56 12 See paras 2.6 and 4.8 above. See para. 5.5 above. See K.H. v. Denmark, para. 8.8; and F.K. v. Denmark, para. 7.6. See para. 2.3 above. See, for example, K.H. v. Denmark, para. 8.8.