complainant’s application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, as it found that no essential humanitarian considerations of such strength existed as to conclusively make it appropriate to grant the application. In that connection, it observed that even though the complainant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, the disorder was not, according to the Ministry’s practice, sufficient to justify the issuance of a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. 4.10On 14 March 2007, the Danish Refugee Council requested the Refugee Appeals Board to reopen the asylum proceedings. On 22 January 2008, the Board refused the request for the reopening of the proceedings. In addition to reiterating the reasoning behindits negative decision of 11 June 2004, the Board considered it unlikely that the complainant would still be pursued for actions which he had not committed and which were solely based on the assumptions of the bereaved families. 4.11On 20 January 2009, Leif Bork Hansen, a priest, requested the Refugee Appeals Board to reopen the complainant’s asylum case, referring to an upcoming examination by the Medical Group of Amnesty International in Denmark. On 21 February 2009, this request was supplemented by the report of the Medical Group of 12 February 2009. By letter of 21 February 2009, the complainant again applied for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. The letter enclosed the report from the Medical Group, from which it appeared that the complainant suffered from obvious physical and mental effects of the torture to which he had been subjected in Iraq and that he had many symptoms compatible with post-traumatic stress disorder.On 30 April 2009, the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs refused the complainant’s request for the reopening of the application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. 4.12 Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding of 13 May 2009 between Denmark and Iraq, the National Police requested the Danish Embassy in Baghdad in May and June 2009 to submit a number of cases to the Iraqi authorities for the purpose of readmission, including the complainant’s case. However, the Iraqi authorities considered the complainant’s identification documents to be false, making it impossible to identify him as an Iraqi national. It was decided to bring the complainant before an Iraqi delegation, which would arrive in Denmark in August 2009, in order to assess his Iraqi nationality. 4.13 On 18 June 2009, the complainant was deprived of his liberty and was transferred to the Ellebaek Institution for Detained AsylumSeekers with a view to his deportation. The complainant was brought before Hillerød District Court on 19 June 2009, which found the deprivation of liberty lawful and fixed a timelimit of 16 July 2009 for his detention. The Court held that his “presence in connection with identification hearings and implementation of his return to Iraq cannot be ensured by less interfering measures than deprivation of liberty”. The order of Hillerød District Court was upheld by the High Court of Eastern Denmark on 23 June 2009. The period of deprivation of liberty was subsequently regularly extended until the complainant’s return on 2 September 2009. 4.14By letter of 16 July 2009, the complainant’s counsel again requested the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs to reopen the application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, submitting a copy of a medical record from the Avnstrup Centre, where the complainant had been treated for a hernia on 16 January 2009. By letter of 29 July 2009, the Ministry again refused to reopen the examination of the complainant’s case regardinga residence permit on humanitarian grounds, as a hernia and type2 diabetes were not considered very serious physical illnesses that could justify the issuance of a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. By letter of 4 August 2009, the complainant’s counsel submitted further medical information to the Ministry, which considered the letter as yet another request for the reopening of the application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. On 6 August 2009, the Ministry refused the complainant’s request for reopening with reference to its previous decisions of 30 April and 29 July 2009. 4.15 By letter of 5 August 2009, Ms. Genefke and Mr. Sørensen made a claim against the Danish authorities with the North Sealand Police about violations of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention. With reference to article 12 of theConvention, Ms. Genefke and Mr. Sørensen requested the police to initiate an investigation. The police forwarded the letter to the Regional Public Prosecutor. 4.16 On 9 August 2009, violent unrest arose in the unit of the Ellebaek Institution in which the complainant was placed. The staff identified the complainant as a very active participant in the unrest. Against that background, he was temporarily excluded from association with other detainees. As the Ellebaek Institution did not have enough places for all detainees to be excluded from association for the participation in the unrest, the complainant was placed in the Vestre Prison until the next day. The complainant’s temporary exclusion from association was terminated on 13 August 2009. 4.17With regard to article 3 of the Convention, the State party argues that it is the responsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of the communicationand to present an arguable case concerning the merits. It continues that it is the complainant who “must establish that he/she would be in danger of being tortured … and that such a danger is personal and present”. 4.18 As concerns the assessment of whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture when returned to Iraq, the State party refers to the three decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board which dealt with the issue of torture. According to the State party, the incident of past torture is only one of the elements in examining a risk of being tortured if the complainant were returned to his country of origin. It makes a reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence according to which it must be considered whether or not the torture occurred recently and in circumstances which are relevant to the prevailing political realities in the country concerned.The State partyconcludes that the part of the complaint alleging a violation of article 3 of the Convention is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. Should the Committee find this part of the complaint admissible, the State party argues that the existence of substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Iraq has not been established. 4.19 In regard to articles 2 and 16 of the Convention, the State party points out that the decision on the complainant’s temporary exclusion from association was made by the Ellebaek Institution. He was excluded from association from 9 August 2009 at 8:30 p.m. until 13 August 2009 at 4:20 p.m. The State party submits that a decision on temporary exclusion from association of an inmate can be appealed to the Department of Prisons and Probation under the Ministry of Justice,and that there is no evidence to indicate that the complainant had appealed the decision of the Ellebaek Institution to the Department. The State party thus submits that this part of