June 2009 to 2 September 2009, including two days of detention in solitary confinement at Vestre Prison, amounted to a violation of articles 16, paragraph 1, and 2 of the Convention, since it caused the complainant to experience severe flashbacks from his seven years of imprisonment in Iraq, during which he had been regularly subjected to torture, and led to renewed mental suffering. 3.2He further claims to be a victim of a violation by the State party of article 12 of the Convention, for failure to carry out a proper investigation into the alleged violations of articles 16 and 2 of the Convention by the State party. The complainant maintains that this is underscored by the fact that he was unexpectedly deported from Denmark on 2 September 2009, before the last medical report had been received by the State party 3.3The complainant submits that domestic remedies should be considered exhausted, as a request with reference to investigation under article 12 was sent to the police, which forwarded it to the State prosecutor, who referred it to the Immigration Service. However, before the start of the investigation, the complainant was forcibly deported and the investigation was made impossible. 3.4Moreover, he claims that his deportation constituted a violation by Denmark of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as he had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment in Iraq in 2005, and he would be exposed to threats from the families of nine friends who had beenexecuted in 1995. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1On 26 August 2010, the State party submitted observations in respect of both the admissibility and the merits of the complainant’s communication. In its observations, the State party submits that the complaint should be declared inadmissible, or alternatively that no violation of the provisions of the Convention has occurred. 4.2The State party recalls that the complainant entered Denmark on 27 December 2002, and applied for asylum, stating that he had been detained in Iraq from 1995 until February 2002 and subjected to torture; that he fled his home in November 2002 when the Iraqi authorities searched for him; and that he feared revenge, especially from three families of executed fellow prisoners, if he returned to his country of origin. 4.3 The Danish Immigration Service refused asylum to the complainant on 10 March 2004, with the motivation that the fact of having been subjected to physical outrages did not in itself justify asylum, since the former Iraqi regime was no longer in power in Iraq and opponents of the former Iraqi regime did not risk persecution upon return to Iraq.Even though it accepted that the families of the complainant’s fellow prisoners might search for him, this could not justify asylum as there were no travel restrictions in Iraq, and the complainant could therefore take up residence somewhere else in Iraq if he did not want to take up residence in his home region. Finally, the Danish Immigration Service found that the situation in Iraq, although generally unsafe, did not justify asylum. 4.4The State party accepts that the complainant was imprisoned in 1995 by the former Iraqi authorities due to his friendship with several members of the special security organization in the presidential palace who were members of the Communist Party. During his arrest, the intelligence service tried to extract a confession from the complainant that he was also a member of the Communist Party. During the trial before a special court, the complainant’s friends were sentenced to death and subsequently executed, while the complainant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The complainant was subjected to torture during his prison stay, as demonstrated by scars and permanent injuries. Upon his release in February 2002, the complainant was placed under surveillance. Following a night search of his house by the intelligence service, the complainant left Baghdad on 18 November 2002. The complainant’s spouse was arrested in December 2002 and was detained for two months. 4.5In addition, the families of the executed friends had threatened the complainant’s family after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The main recipients of the threats, including death threats, were the complainant’s family-in-law, in particular his brother-in-law. The families had inquired about what happened during the trial at which the complainant’s friends had been sentenced to death. As there was no evidence available fromthe court, the complainant was unable to prove that he had had nothing to do with their deaths. The complainant fears revenge from the family members of the nine executed persons if he returns to Iraq. 4.6 In its decision of 11 June 2004, the Refugee Appeals Board found that the complainant’s detention and the house search in November 2002 did not justify granting asylum in 2004. In that connection, the Board emphasized that Hussein’s regime was no longer in power in Iraq. 4.7Even though the Refugee Appeals Board considered as verified that the complainant’s family had received threats from family members of the executed friends, it reiterated that this was a private-law issue of insufficient strength to justify asylum. The Board further found that the complainant could take up residence elsewhere than in Baghdad. Finally, the Board found that the general situation in Iraq did not in itself justify asylum. In that connection, it found that the background information available showed that Iraqis could move freely in the entire country. The Board also found that the complainant did not meet the conditions for a residence permit and that there was no basis for assuming that the complainant, upon return to his country of origin, risked the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The Board upheld the decision of the Danish Immigration Service of 10 March 2004, and the complainant was ordered to leave Denmark immediately, as provided for by section 33, paragraphs1 and 2, of the Aliens Act. 4.8On 8 July 2004, the complainant stated that he did not want to leave voluntarily or to be assisted in his return to Iraq. Therefore, he was subjected to incentive measures in the form of discontinuation of cash benefits, transfer to a return centre and the imposition of a duty to report to the police twice a week. 4.9On 29 June 2005, the complainant applied to the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. The complainant appended a supporting opinion of 13 April 2004 from a psychiatrist, from which it appeared that he had received treatment since November 2003 due to medium to severe post-traumatic stress disorder and that he suffered from and was being treated for mental sequelae following torture. On 29 August 2005, the Ministry refused the