CAT/C/61/D/747/2016 not claim to have been tortured after the conviction; that it appeared unlikely that his brother S.Y. would have consented to remain in prison in his place if he had experienced torture, as the complainant claims; and that there were contradictions in the complainant’s account of his political activities in Turkey and in Switzerland. 10.6 The Committee refers to its consideration of the fourth periodic report submitted by Turkey, during which it expressed serious concern at numerous reports of law enforcement officials engaging in torture and ill-treatment of detainees while responding to perceived and alleged security threats in the context of the PKK insurgency since 2015 and at the reported impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of such acts, 17 particularly in the absence of an independent State body to investigate complaints of torture and ill-treatment against law enforcement officers.18 In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee has taken note of the State party’s argument that Turkey has provided diplomatic assurances in support of the extradition request, that the Swiss authorities in Turkey would be able to monitor their implementation and that Turkey, as a party to the European Convention on Extradition, has never breached its diplomatic assurances. The Committee has also noted the complainant’s contentions that diplomatic assurances are not sufficient or reliable to eliminate the risk of torture in his case due to the political motivation of the extradition request; that the use of torture in places of deprivation of liberty continues to be prevalent in Turkey; that it is difficult to monitor diplomatic assurances as the complainant allegedly did not enjoy the right to legal counsel preceding his conviction; that the Swiss authorities did not deny that the complainant risked persecution after his release; and that there was a heightened risk that he would be apprehended and tortured by members of the secret services before being handed over to the prison authorities due to his affiliation with highlevel PKK members in Switzerland. It has taken note of the claim, undisputed by the State party, that the assurances were provided by Turkey only after three unsuccessful attempts, which shows unwillingness on the part of Turkey to comply with them; and that the human rights situation in Turkey has deteriorated significantly since the assurances were issued in 2012, particularly in the light of the 2015 elections and PKK insurgency, the attempted coup and state of emergency in 2016 and the ensuing large-scale arrests, detentions and dismissals of those suspected of subversive activities and the 2017 constitutional amendments. 10.7 The Committee notes that it is uncontested that the State party’s asylum authorities had assessed that the complainant’s refoulement would expose him to a risk of torture. The State party, however, argues that the diplomatic assurances given by Turkey eliminate any such risk. The Committee further notes that medical reports indicate that the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder due to the acts of torture suffered and that he has tried to commit suicide since his extradition was agreed to by the State party. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee finds that in the circumstances of the present case, diplomatic assurances cannot dispel the prevailing substantial grounds for believing that the complainant’s extradition to Turkey would expose him to a danger of being subjected to torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 11. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the State party has an obligation, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, to refrain from extraditing the complainant to Turkey or to any other country where he runs a real risk of being returned to Turkey. 12. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations. 17 18 See CAT/C/TUR/CO/4, para. 11 Ibid., para. 9. The Committee also expressed concern at inadequate health-care services in the prison system (para. 31). 13