CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 2013, his counsel requested information about the 18 December 2013 incident in the prison in order to file the complaint. A prison report dated 18 December indicated that the complainant started a hunger strike on 17 December 2013. The use of force was initiated on 18 December 2013 in the morning, notably the complainant was handcuffed for about an hour in order to stop his attempts to harm himself. In connection to the scheduled transportation to the Turkish Embassy, the complainant had cut himself. The cuts were assessed as “superficial” by the prison staff. The complainant argues that prison guards and police officers are not trained to provide such an assessment. Furthermore, he reiterates that no doctor or nurse examined him before the police drove him towards the Turkish Embassy in Copenhagen. The complainant submits that the use of force against him amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. He further contends that he was naked when several prison guards attacked him in his cell and, while he was still bleeding, forced him to the floor on his front and handcuffed him on his back. This is disputed by the State party but, according to the complainant, no proper investigation of the incident was initiated. No medical assistance was provided by trained medical personnel until after his return. On 30 December 2013, the complainant filed a complaint claiming violation of articles 12 and 16 of the Convention. On 8 January 2014, the prison rejected any wrongdoing with regard to the incident. On 26 February 2014, the complainant appealed to the Ministry of Justice. On 22 May 2014, the Ministry rejected the appeal, stating that it was a matter to be addressed to the courts. The complainant submits that all the domestic remedies were exhausted as the issue was dealt with by the City Court in 2013 and the High Court, respectively, on 12 December and on 20 December 2013. Subsequently, on 20 February 2014, the Supreme Court refused to consider the case on appeal. 5.4 The complainant also criticizes specific observations made by the State party concerning the facts of the case. Firstly, he points out that he has had no access to any torture victim rehabilitation programme while in Denmark and, on the contrary, was detained for six months between November 2012 and May 2013 and for two months between November 2013 and January 2014. Regarding the criminal proceedings against him, he submits that the “criminal” offences he committed were possession of hashish for his own use and possession of a fake identity card. He claims that many torture victims without proper treatment use hashish for “self-medication”. Under Danish criminal law, he was sentenced to 40 days’ imprisonment and expulsion with a 6-year re-entry ban. With respect to the District Court decision dated 12 December 2013, permitting the national police to present the complainant to the Turkish Embassy in Copenhagen and ordering the Danish Prison and Probation Service to remove him from the cell and to commit him to the care of the police, the complainant maintains that the State party omits to inform the Committee that he appealed that decision. He further states that the High Court decided in favour of the police, allowing them to take the complainant to the Turkish Embassy by force on 20 December 2013. However, the police had already tried to take him to the Embassy on 17 December and again on 18 December. The complainant also maintains that, from the State party’s submission, it can be established as fact that no medical staff were present at the incident to establish that the bleeding from his wounds has stopped. He further contests the State party’s explanation that he put on a sweater, as it implies that his hands were free. He maintains that he was handcuffed and only after the police refused to take him into their car naked and still bleeding did the prison staff take him back in the cell, force him to the floor, take off his handcuffs, dress him in a sweater and then handcuff him again. The complainant also challenges the observation made by the State party as to the reason why the police returned to the prison instead of handing him over to the Turkish Embassy. He submits that his counsel had filed the appeal with the High Court against the order of 12 December 2013 earlier than claimed and not on 18 December, when the “operation” had already started. He further alleges that the State party is lying about that because the present communication is highly controversial in the Danish context. 10