CAT/C/32/D/202/2002 Page 12 records of the Board show that in 1996 (when it was established) and 1999 no grants for leave to appeal were made in cases concerning pre-trial detention and solitary confinement for that eave to appeal to be granted, it is necessary to prove exceptional circumstances, such as youth or prior mental problems. Moreover, the few cases concerning remand in solitary confinement in which leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted, are unlikely to be overturned. Thus, the complainant argues, exhaustion of domestic remedies is not necessary, as “it is established that the application of domestic remedies… would be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring effective relief to the presumed victim”.9 5.2 The complainant argues that in her merits response below, it is demonstrated that the violation of her rights is not solely attributable to the Danish judiciary but also to the prison authorities and the Kalundborg Police, for failure to secure had her removal from solitary confinement, when, as early as 15 May 1998, medical experts did document the devastating psychological harm she had suffered through solitary confinement. Furthermore, it is within the remit of the DPP to initiate investigations of local police districts, such as the Kalundborg Police. 5.3 On the argument that she should have sought compensation, the complainant submits that her purpose in submitting a complaint to the Committee is not to seek compensation, but to establish that the State party violated her rights under the Convention. Denmark is a “dualist” state, which chose not to incorporate the Convention into Danish law. Consequently, the Danish courts have no power to hear complaints brought by individuals based on the provisions of the Convention. A complaint before the Danish courts seeking to establish a violation of her Convention rights would have been futile, thus rendering a compensation claim under Section 1018 a (2) an ineffective remedy for an alleged violation of the Convention. The complainant also notes that the Danish courts have consistently refused to acknowledge that illness during police custody can entail violations of the Convention and article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention. 9 L.O. v. Canada, Complaint No. 95/1997 of 19 May 2000. The State party also refers to T.P.S. v. Canada, Complaint No. 99/1997 of 16 of May 2000.