CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 party’s opinion, it is unlikely that the authorities had not listed the complainant as wanted in all of Turkey two years after his cousin’s arrest. The State party considers that, in the instant case, the complainant’s statements appear inconsistent, elaborative and unlikely on crucial points and does not find that this can be explained by the author having allegedly been subjected to torture or other abuse by the Turkish authorities during detention. Furthermore, the State party observes that the instances of detention, the specific times of which the complainant has been unable to account for in detail, lasted a few days, after which the complainant was released unconditionally. 4.15 Concerning the complainant’s claim under article 12, the State party observes that, concerning the elements necessary to initiate an investigation, the State party relies on the Committee’s decision in Abad v. Spain,11 as opposed to the present case, in order to demonstrate that the latter is clearly distinguishable. The State party asserts that the complainant was detained by decision of the court and there is no information indicating that his health gave reasonable grounds to fear that the imprisonment would constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of the Convention. Furthermore, nothing in the treatment of the complainant by the police on 18 December 2013 ought to have given grounds for initiating an investigation pursuant to article 12 of the Convention. 4.16 For the reasons detailed above, the State party considers that the communication is without merit. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his comments dated 7 October 2014, the complainant provides additional information about a medical torture examination done without charge by Amnesty International in Denmark. On 17 September 2014, the complainant was examined by two Danish doctors on behalf of Amnesty International. Their medical report dated 25 September 2014 concluded that: “there is consistency between the described torture and the signs and symptoms resulting from the current investigation”. It also established that the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. He further submits that he would not have the means to pay for a medical examination himself. 5.2 The complainant also reiterates his comments regarding the procedural necessity of a medical examination for signs of torture, providing information about another case of a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity claiming asylum in Denmark, in which the Board decided on its own initiative to send that individual to hospital for an examination for signs of torture. The complainant argues that this is the procedure that should have been applied in the present case. In addition, he refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 and its most recent concluding observations on Turkey ascertaining the general situation in the country and the past instances of torture as the two main factors to be taken into consideration. The complainant argues that the majority of the Refugee Appeals Board members were “ignorant about the test”. Given the split among them concerning the complainant’s credibility, the medical examination was crucial not only for the assessment of the future risk of torture, but also essential in understanding why, as a torture victim, the complainant may have difficulty in remembering and explaining what has happened to him. He claims that he should have had the benefit of the doubt. 5.3 As to the complaint under article 12 of the Convention, the complainant details further that he filed a complaint about the treatment he had suffered while in custody, the lack of medical assistance and the lack of investigation into the incident. On 20 December 11 Decision of 14 May 1998. 9