CAT/C/32/D/202/2002 Page 7 and shorter periods of such confinement.1 4.3 The State party challenges the admissibility of the complaint for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Firstly, the complainant could have applied to the Board of Appeal for leave to appeal the orders of the High Court to the Supreme Court. Under Section 973 of the Act, the Board could have granted leave to appeal, “if the appeal relates to questions of a fundamental nature or specific reasons otherwise make it appropriate”. In support of her application, she could have argued that her pre-trial detention in solitary confinement was contrary to the Convention. The State party notes that the European Court of Human Rights has held that an application to the Board of Appeal for leave to appeal is a remedy that must be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility of a complaint under the European Convention.2 4.4 Secondly, although the complainant was convicted, she could have made a claim for compensation under Section 1018 a (2) or h of the Act. Pursuant to Section 1018 a (2), a person who was arrested or held in pre-trial detention as part of a criminal prosecution is entitled to compensation for injury caused while detained if “the deprivation of liberty applied during the case is not reasonably proportionate to the outcome of the prosecution, or if it is found reasonable for other specific reasons”. The fact that pre-trial detention in solitary confinement is alleged to have harmed the complainant would have been particularly relevant to such a claim for compensation. Pursuant to Section 1018 h, anyone may claim compensation in respect of criminal proceedings on the basis of the general rules of tort law. 4.5 A claim for compensation under Section 1018 a (2) is considered by the Regional Public Prosecutor, with the possibility of appeal to the DPP, and a claim under Section 1018 h is considered by the DPP with the possibility of appeal to the Ministry of Justice. In both cases, the complainant would have the possibility of filing a claim before the court, under Section 1018 f (1), in the event of a refusal on appeal. To demonstrate that this remedy is available and effective in the circumstances of the present complaint, the State party invokes the following example of a similar case, in 1 The State party refers the Committee to the account given in Denmark’s fourth periodic report, paras. 117-123 (CAT/C/55/Add.2). 2 Application No. 45485/99, Ali Lanewala v. Denmark.