CAT/C/58/D/607/2014 2.6 On 30 May 2014, the refugee appeals board rejected the complainant’s request to reopen the asylum proceedings, as no new information had been provided. 2.7 The complainant notes that, since decisions by the refugee appeals board are final and cannot be submitted to judicial review, he has exhausted all domestic remedies. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his rights under article 3 (1) of the Convention would be violated by the State party in the event of his deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complainant fears that, if he were to be deported, he could be subjected to torture again. He further notes that, as a torture victim, he is in need for protection and rehabilitation, which he would not be able to obtain in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 3.2 The complainant argues that Danish authorities have not disputed the fact that he was subjected to torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the past. Nevertheless, the refugee appeals board rejected the possibility of submitting the complainant to a torture examination without justifying that decision, which amounts to a violation of article 3 (2) of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 2 December 2014, the State party noted that the complainant had not provided substantial grounds to support the risk of being subjected to torture in case of his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran and that the communication was therefore ill-founded. It added that the complainant was attempting to use the Committee as an appellate body and have the factual circumstances advocated in support of his asylum claim reviewed. The decision by the refugee appeals board had been adopted after a comprehensive and through examination of the evidence of the case and a procedure during which the complainant had been able to present his views with the assistance of a counsel. The complainant’s communication before the Committee does not contain any new information. 4.2 On the merits, the State party argued that the refugee appeals board had relied on the complainant’s contradictory statements and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for them to find that the complainant lacked credibility. Neither the alleged torture experienced by the complainant over 25 years ago nor the general human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran could lead to a different assessment of the matter. 4.3 With regard to the author’s complaint regarding the refugee appeals board’s failure to conduct a medical examination to identify signs of torture, the State party submitted that such examination was not required in the present case given the complainant’s clear lack of credibility on a number of fundamental issues, as concluded by the board. The State party added that the board does not undertake such examinations where it has been unable to find any grounds for asylum as a proven fact or where, even if past torture as is considered proven or possible, the board concludes that a current risk of torture is inexistent. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5. On 7 February 2015, the complainant noted that his past torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran had been confirmed by a medical examination carried out in Greece in 1991 and that it was on that basis that Denmark had granted him and his family refugee status. He noted that he had never argued before Danish authorities that he had been tortured when he was detained in 2009, but he feared that, if detained again, Iranian authorities would evoke the circumstances that had led to his detention in the 1980s, would subject him to torture and would bar him from receiving rehabilitation in the form of medical treatment. He argued that the need for a medical examination by the board was not to prove that he was a torture survivor but to determine that he needed rehabilitation 3