CAT/C/61/D/747/2016 directly linked to the torture he suffered in custody. The complainant claims that his brother S.Y. was granted asylum in Switzerland on the grounds that he had been tortured while detained on the same murder charge as the complainant. S.Y. described to the Swiss asylum authorities how the complainant, M.Y. and he himself had been tortured in detention. As the complainant had provided an identical description in his asylum application, the Swiss authorities should have considered his description of the torture to be credible as well. Furthermore, with regard to S.Y., the Swiss authorities implicitly admitted that M.Y. had been forced to testify against the complainant under torture. Hence, the criminal proceedings against the complainant were flawed and unfair. 3.4 Second, the complainant is particularly vulnerable due to his severe health condition, including the post-traumatic stress disorder, several suicide attempts during the extradition proceedings and partial disability. According to the psychiatric report dated 30 July 2014, it was necessary for him to continue treatment in Switzerland. According to the psychiatric report of 10 June 2015, his removal would almost certainly lead to retraumatization; his obvious fear and physical tension in relation to detention and eventual ill-treatment in Turkey were visible and noticeable. 3.5 Third, the complainant points out contradictions in the findings of the Swiss asylum and extradition authorities. The domestic courts disregarded the assessment by the Federal Office for Refugees that he would face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if he were returned to Turkey only because he was facing extradition, not expulsion. The Federal Criminal Court held that the extradition authorities were not bound by the determination of the asylum authorities. Furthermore, the domestic courts did not give due consideration to the fact that criminal proceedings had recently been brought against two of his relatives in relation to their PKK involvement. 3.6 Fourth, the complainant, an ethnic Kurd, belongs to a family of PKK supporters. His father died because of his political affiliation with PKK and his brother S.Y. was prosecuted for having supported PKK. Records of these proceedings refer to the complainant as a PKK supporter. Furthermore, the complainant’s family members 6 were questioned at the airport when they visited Turkey. 3.7 Fifth, the complainant was wanted by the Turkish authorities for political reasons. The fact that the Turkish authorities requested his extradition in 2011, although they knew that he had been residing in Switzerland since 1992, shows that they are interested in his connections with leading PKK members in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe. The replacement of his political data sheet with a regular data sheet during the extradition proceedings also points in that direction. Records of the criminal proceedings against S.Y. refer to the complainant as a PKK member, on the basis of which the complainant was listed as an “inconvenient person”. 3.8 Finally, the complainant is of particular interest to the Turkish authorities due to his political affiliation with PKK in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe, and his close contact with prominent PKK leaders through his job as a driver. The complainant’s political activities in Switzerland are reflected in the 7 May 2015 decision of the Federal Criminal Court, which is publicly accessible, and in the Swiss press. The Turkish authorities monitor PKK activities abroad. It is considered a terrorist organization in Turkey and in the European Union. Under the Turkish anti-terrorist laws, involvement in PKK is an aggravating circumstance that doubles the penalty in criminal proceedings. 3.9 The complainant further contends, with reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, that the diplomatic assurances provided by Turkey are not sufficient or reliable so as to eliminate the risk that he would be subjected to torture upon return. 7 Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has emphasized that in extradition cases the sending party should not rely on the diplomatic assurances of countries where there is a consistent pattern of human rights violations or a systematic practice of torture and, in the absence of such a pattern, the use of 6 7 Not specified. See communications No. 233/2003, Agiza v. Sweden, decision adopted on 20 May 2015, paras. 13.413.5; and No. 281/2005, Pelit v. Azerbaijan, decision adopted on 1 May 2007, para. 11. 5