CAT/C/53/D/450/2011 show that he was wanted by the authorities of his country of origin or that he would face arrest in Yemen for his political activities. 7.6 With regard to the allegations of torture, the Committee notes that in the medical certificate dated 17 December 2004 the doctor states that the symptoms described by the complainant, namely severe frontal headaches and a complete loss of the sense of smell, are closely related to the ill-treatment to which he was subjected, but that the complainant does not suffer from flashbacks in which he has the impression of reliving traumatic events or from depression. He diagnoses a condition of chronic pain as a result of physical and psychological trauma and the possible development of a post-traumatic stress disorder if the complainant is returned. Moreover, the complainant has shown that, at the time of his first interview with the Swiss authorities, he had scars from being burned with cigarettes and beaten with rifle butts, as recorded in the report of the interview of 2 October 2003, and that the official at the Federal Office for Migration who interviewed him had recommended that he should be examined by a medical specialist. The Committee notes that the State party has not contested these claims. However, the State party did not proceed to carry out the recommended medical examination and subsequently maintained that the medical certificate of 17 December 2004 had no probative value, that the medical history taken by the practitioner was based on the complainant’s statements and that there were no physical after-effects of the ill-treatment that he had described. The Committee considers that, although it is for the complainant to establish a prima facie case to request asylum, namely by submitting medical opinions on the torture to which he was subjected, that does not absolve the State party from undertaking a review of the merits of these medical opinions. Therefore, the Committee concludes that by rejecting the complainant’s asylum request without further investigating his allegations or ordering a medical examination, the State party has failed to determine whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant risked being subjected to torture if he was expelled. 7.7 Furthermore, the Committee observes that the complainant claims that he was detained for 5 months and 18 days without due process and that the guards tortured him for having “sullied the honour” of the Yemeni people. The State party does not challenge the fact that he was detained or that he was subjected to torture, but it argues that the complainant did not provide a precise description of the events that occurred during his detention. The Committee also observes that the complainant learned about the summons to appear only after his escape from prison, from a third party, who provided him with a copy of the summons that had appeared in a newspaper. The State party does not contest this information. However, there is still no agreement on the grounds for the charges against the complainant: (a) according to the complainant, he was initially charged with theft and possession of false identity papers; (b) according to the charge published in a newspaper, as reported by the State party and the complainant, he was being prosecuted for alcohol consumption; (c) according to his officially appointed lawyer in Yemen, the complainant was being prosecuted for alcohol consumption, engaging in prostitution and debauchery; (d) according to the complainant’s statement received by the secretariat on 21 August 2014, the Swiss Federal Office for Migration had reportedly concluded that the complainant had been convicted in Yemen on suspicion of selling and trafficking in alcoholic drinks. 7.8 However that may be, the Committee notes that, according to his officially appointed lawyer, the complainant is considered by the Yemeni authorities to be a fugitive, and that, according to the complainant, he was tried in absentia under the law applying to fugitives (see paragraph 2.5 above). The Committee also notes that, since the request for evidence made by the complainant’s appointed lawyer in 2003, none of the parties involved has had knowledge either of the evidence before the court or of the sentence and penalty that were purportedly issued against the complainant in absentia. Given the uncertainty surrounding the situation of the complainant if returned to his country, the Committee recalls its concluding observations on the report of Yemen in 2010, according to which the GE.15-00369 11