CAT/C/61/D/625/2014 their own schools and hospitals. 24 In addition, the Government is willing to provide protection to Christians who are the victims of attacks by non-governmental actors, and relocation is a viable option.25 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 10 June 2016, the complainant provided comments on the State party’s observations. He considers that the State party has failed to demonstrate that his communication is manifestly unfounded and, therefore, it should be declared admissible. In addition, he maintains that such an argument is closely linked to the merits of the communication and that therefore it should be declared admissible. Regarding the merits of the communication, the complainant maintains that it has been demonstrated that the State party has violated article 3 of the Convention, in particular because his request to have a medical examination to determine if he was subjected to torture before arriving in Denmark has been rejected by the State party’s authorities. 5.2 The complainant reiterates that that his complaint is identical to K.H. v. Denmark,26 in which the complainant had been denied a medical examination. Following a decision of the Committee, the complainant had to be readmitted to Denmark — after having been deported — and has been granted refugee status. He also reiterates that his case is very similar to Amini v. Denmark.27 The complainant also refers to the Committee’s decision in F.K. v Denmark,28 in which the Committee considered that, by rejecting the complainant’s asylum application without ordering a medical examination, the State party failed to sufficiently investigate whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin. 5.3 Regarding the State party’s reference to the European Court’s judgment in R.C. v. Sweden,29 the complainant indicates that, in that case, the Court disagreed with the State party’s conclusion, as it found that the applicant’s story was consistent throughout the proceedings and that, notwithstanding some uncertain aspects, such uncertainties did not undermine the overall credibility of his story. The Court declared that article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms would be violated if the applicant were deported to his country of origin. The complainant maintains that the Court found such a violation because the Swedish authorities should have ordered that a medical examination be carried out to establish the probable cause of the applicant’s scars, taking into account that he had made a prima facie case as to their origin. 30 5.4 The complainant further claims that by denying him the possibility to undergo a medical examination that would have confirmed that he had been subjected to torture, based solely on his credibility, the State party violated article 3 of the Convention. He argues that his case was sufficiently substantiated prima facie, especially through the medical certificate provided by the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, and the letter from the organization Jesus Hope for Life confirming that the complainant had been persecuted because of his activities for the organization. 31 This is confirmed by the fact that when he submitted his asylum application, the Immigration Service did not even ask him to fill in the consent form for a medical examination. 5.5 The complainant also indicates that he should have benefited from a different standard of proof from refugees who have not been subjected to torture, in particular taking 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 United Kingdom, Home Office, “Country information and guidance. Pakistan: Christians and Christian converts” (London, 2016). Available at www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/566235/Pakistan-Christians_and_Christian_converts.pdf. The State party refers to UNHCR, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Members of Religious Minorities from Pakistan, p. 41 ff. See para. 3.2 above. Ibid. See communication No. 580/2014, F.K. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2015. See para. 4.8 above. See R.C. v. Sweden, para. 53. See para. 2.1 above. 7