the communication should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of available and effective remedies. The State party objects to the complainant’s claims that his temporary exclusion from association constituted “torture” according to article 1 (in conjunction with article 2) or, alternatively, “cruel, in-human or degrading treatment or punishment” according to article 16. The State party claims, making a reference to the Committee’s concluding observations and jurisprudence, that “solitary confinement” in general does not fall within the definition of torture,and that temporary exclusion pursuant to the Sentence Enforcement Act does not constitute torture as it can only be applied when necessary, such as to prevent escape, criminal activities or violent behavior. 4.20The State party argues that article 16 of the Convention does not involve a general prohibition of exclusion from association. The Government concedes that exclusion from association may, in specific cases, depending on the circumstances of the case, amount to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment”.Nonetheless, the State party submits that the complainant’s temporary exclusion only for a brief period did not constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to article 16 of the Convention, given the overall assessment of the circumstances of the complainant’s involvement in the violent unrest that broke out in the Ellebaek Institution on 9 August 2009, as well as the fact that the complainant was interviewed by a psychologist and continued to receive medical treatment during his exclusion from association. Moreover, the State party challenges the medical certificates by Dr. Østergaard of 28 August and 7 September 2009 in support of the complainant’s claim that the temporary exclusion constituted torture, as the doctor was not the complainant’s treating physician. In addition, the State party submits that the complainant received an explanation of the background of the temporary exclusion prior to its commencement, whereupon he kept composed and calm. The State party adds that there were no restrictions on the complainant’s right to receive booked visits and that his cell was equipped with TV and he could take one hour’s outdoor exercise alone. The only restrictions imposed on the applicant during his stay in the Vestre Prison were that he was not allowed to associate with other inmates in cells and to take outdoor exercise in association with others. A similar regime applied to his exclusion from association in the Ellebaek Institution. 4.21In its observations on article 12 of the Convention, the State party acknowledges that this article also applies in cases of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment orpunishment”. Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence interpreting the scope of the obligation to investigate acts of torture or ill-treatment, the State party submits that the complainant was assessed by a psychiatric consultant of the Copenhagen Prisons on 6 July 2009, and that there was no indication that his health had deteriorated so much during the temporary exclusion from association that there were reasonable grounds to fear that the exclusion from association would constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of the Convention. As of 6 July 2009, the complainant received treatment with chlorprothixene, which he also received during his temporary exclusion from association. The psychiatric consultant also recommended that treatment with antidepressants could be considered if the complainant were to remain in detention for a long period. 4.22 The State party acknowledges its duty to initiate an investigation if there are reasonable grounds, regardless of the origin of the suspicion. However, in the present case, the complaint submitted by Mr. Sørensen and Ms. Genefke prior to the complainant’s temporary exclusion from association did not constitute such reasonable grounds. The “information” provided by Mr. Sørensen and Ms. Genefke did not contain such new information about the circumstances during the complainant’s deprivation of liberty, including information on the complainant’s health, as could, in the State party’s view, have implied a duty to initiate an investigation under article 12 of the Convention. According to the State party, the “information” only contained a request to the Danish authorities to initiate an investigation under article 12, but did not present any arguments in support thereof, other than the reference to the fact that the complainant had previously been subjected to torture and therefore had an increased risk of flashbacks if imprisoned.Moreover, according to the State party, the complainant did not at any time allege that he had been subjected to any mistreatment during his detention at the Ellebaek Institution, including the time he spent as temporarily excluded from association. The State party notes in particular that the complainant expressly stated during the interview at the Ellebaek Institution that he did not want to complain of any staff behavior. Against this background, the State party has been of the view that no reasonable ground existed to believe that the complainant was subjected to an act of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment while he was temporarily excluded from association. 4.23 The State party concludes that no violations of the Convention occurred in the present case. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1In his comments dated 22 November 2010, the complainant’s counsel recalled relevant facts of the case. 5.2 With reference to article 12 of the Convention, the complainant opposes the allegations of the State party that the complainant “seemed satisfied and kept composed and calm” during the exclusion from association. He also contests the State party’s statement that the complaint submitted by Mr. Sørensen and Ms. Genefke on 5 August 2009, prior to his temporary exclusion from association, did not constitute a reasonable ground for initiating an investigation according to article 12 of the Convention. The two referred experts are considered as the leading expertson issues of torture, and their complaint on behalf of a victim of torture or ill-treatment alleging a risk of flashbacks and deterioration of his mental health as a result of the previously incurred torture should have been considered as a reasonable ground for further investigations. Moreover, the complainant points out that the complaint of 5 August 2009 targeted the conditions of detention since 18 June 2009, not just a punitive four-day exclusion from association, and the deprivation of liberty as a form of torture or ill-treatment against a former victim of torture. In addition, as the complainant was put in a punitive cell, which was even worse for his health condition, this should have been considered as an additional reason to carry out an investigation pursuant to article 12 of the Convention, as demanded by the two experts on behalf of the complainant. Except for the reference to a psychiatric report of 6 July 2009 and the complainant’s treatment with chlorprothixene in order to contain his anxiety when in detention, the State party has not, in counsel’s view, convincingly explained the frequency and type of medical examination that was afforded to him as a former victim of torture prior to and during his detention. According to the complainant, the examination of his health condition was never done by the State party but only on a private initiative of the medical doctor who concluded, on 28 August 2009, that his health condition had seriously deteriorated. Furthermore, the complainant submits that the certificate was rejected as new evidence by the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration andIntegration Affairs on 1 September 2009 as the medical certificate was “not signed” by Dr.Østergaard. Although the Ministry requested that a new and signed medical certificate by Dr.Østergaard be resubmitted by 8 September 2009, the State party deported the complainant to Iraq on 2 September 2009.