5.3 In addition, the complainant reasserts that by refusing to initiate the investigation of his medical condition the State party remained without the basic knowledge concerning the complainant’s suffering due to the previous torture and inhuman treatment in Iraq and the new suffering caused by the detention and use of a punitive cell in Denmark, in violation of articles 2 and 16 and article 12 of the Convention. Contesting the State party’s claim that the complainant in the present case did not at any time allege that he had been subjected to any ill-treatment during his detention at the Ellebaek Institution, the complainant submits that a request for investigation was filed on his behalf on 5 August 2009, followed by a number of letters and e-mails by his counsel. Moreover, he submits that the State party’s claim of the complainant’s alleged statement during an interview to the effect that “he did not want to complain of any staff behavior”, cannot be considered as proof that he withdrew the complaint of 5 August 2009 by Mr. Sørensen and Ms. Genefke. Finally, the complainant makes a distinction between the possibility to complain about the “concrete behavior” of individual staff members and to complain against the decision to initiate the use of the punitive cell and transfer the complainant to the Vestre Prison, which is used for ordinary criminals. In the complainant’s view, the inhumane treatment was first and foremost incurred by the decision to detain the complainant and to transfer him to a punitive cell in Vestre Prison. 5.4As regards thealleged violation of article 3 of the Convention, the complainant submits that his deportation was initiated on 25 August 2009 when the State Police enquired with the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs, the Appeals Board and the Immigration Service whether the police could proceed with the deportation. The complainant asserts that the violation of article 3 of the Convention took effect on 2 September 2009, when the deportation was carried out. He also submits that he was deported to Iraq without an investigation into his health condition resulting from the previously incurred torture and inhuman treatment. He adds that the deportation was carried out in disregard of the report by the Medical Group of Amnesty International of 12 February 2009, as well as of the medical certificate of 28 August 2009. He concludes that his deportation prior to the expiry of a seven-day time limit for the resubmission of a new and signed medical certificate to the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration andIntegration Affairs underscores an allegedly clear-cut violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of the remedies has been unreasonably prolonged, or that it is unlikely to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. 6.3The Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the complaint in regard to the claims of a violation of articles 2 and 16 on the ground there was no evidence to indicate that the complainant had appealed the decision of the Ellebaek Institution regarding a temporary exclusion from association to the Department of Prisons and Probation. The Committee notes that the State party requested that this part of the complaint be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of all available and effective domestic remedies. However, the Committee notes that the subject matter before it is not exclusively relating to the detention in temporary exclusion from association but to the entire period of detention as of 18 June 2009. The Committee notes that the complainant’s detention in Ellebaek Institution was upheld by Hillerød District Court on 19 June 2009 and the High Court of Eastern Denmark on 23 June 2009. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, from considering the complaint. 6.4 The Committee further notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the complaint in regard to the claim of a violation of article 12 on the ground that the allegations submitted on behalf of the complainant of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment did not present a prima faciecase and thus did not imply a duty upon the State party to investigate. The Committee is of the opinion that the allegations under article 12 raise substantive issues which should be dealt with on the merits and not on admissibility. The Committee thus considers this part of the complaint admissible. 6.5 The Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the complaint in regard to a violation of article 3 on the grounds that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of the communication. The Committee however is of the opinion that the allegations raise substantive issues which should be dealt with on the merits and not on admissibility. The Committee considers the part of the complaint in regard to article 3 admissible. 6.6. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. Confinement 7.2The first issue before the Committee is whether the confinement of the complainant, a former victim of torture, in Ellebaek Institution amounts to torture or to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contrary to articles 2 and 16 of the