CAT/C/53/D/450/2011 State party could have had the scars examined by an expert. The State party had the necessary financial and logistical means to have tests done for signs of torture, unlike the complainant, who had just arrived in the country and had no such means. Consequently, the complainant maintains that, in the light of the Committee’s general comment No. 1, paragraph 5, he has established an arguable case and has provided medical evidence of torture. 5.4 Regarding the State party’s assessment that the complainant’s description of his detention was lacking in details, he considers that, in his asylum applications, he gave a consistent description of his detention and provided sufficient details concerning the acts committed against him and their frequency, including a graphic description of how he was raped with a bottle. He adds that it took considerable effort on his part to be able to talk about the incidents of torture and indicates problems relating to confidence and courage as having prevented him from saying more. 5.5 The complainant refutes the State party’s allegation that his account of his departure from prison lacks credibility. According to the complainant, his former employer allegedly also helped him to escape out of fear that during the complainant’s trial the latter might disclose his employer’s engine oil smuggling activities. The State party found it inconceivable that the complainant’s former employer should fear the authorities’ reactions to statements made by a member of a low caste. The complainant emphasizes that it is nevertheless common knowledge that the Yemeni authorities are feared by the population because of their practice of torture and incommunicado detention. 5.6 The complainant notes that the State party does not contest his involvement in political activities or the fact that the Government of Yemen keeps a watch on political activities in Switzerland. However, the distinction made by the State party between activists and serious government opponents is not an accurate reflection of the situation in Yemen. While charges against and trials of opponents tend to be limited to the leaders of movements, the arbitrary arrest, torture in detention and enforced disappearance of persons involved in political demonstrations are a common occurrence. Hundreds of unarmed demonstrators have been killed since the beginning of the popular uprisings. The complainant therefore considers that he faces a risk of torture, if returned, for publicly criticizing the Government in the press and participating in demonstrations in Switzerland. As regards his illiteracy, the complainant explains that a friend helps him to write his articles but that the opinions expressed in them are his own. 5.7 The complainant concludes that the State party has not expressed significant doubts about the complaint and that, in view of the reports of the situation in Yemen, there are substantial grounds for believing that he could be subjected to torture, within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims 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 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that in the instant case the State party has recognized that the complainant GE.15-00369 9