CAT/C/61/D/747/2016 assurances should only be allowed when they are unequivocal and where there is an effective monitoring system. 8 However, post-return monitoring mechanisms do little to mitigate the risk of torture and have proven ineffective in both safeguarding against torture and as a mechanism of accountability. 9 In the complainant’s case, the following factors demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the diplomatic assurances: they were provided only after three unsuccessful requests from the Swiss authorities, which shows the unwillingness of Turkey to comply with them; the fact that the Swiss authorities did not deny a risk of persecution after the complainant’s release; that the Swiss asylum authorities had found that there was a real risk of torture for the complainant in Turkey; Turkey’s poor human rights record, particularly the use of torture in custody and the ineffective investigation thereof; 10 and difficulties related to monitoring the implementation of the assurances. The complainant claims that, due to his affiliation with high-level PKK members, there is a risk that he would be apprehended and tortured by members of the secret services before being handed over to the prison authorities. Furthermore, the fact that he had escaped from prison in Turkey would increase the risk of torture. Article 3 of the Convention places an absolute ban on extraditions, including of individuals with links to political parties considered as terrorist organizations such as PKK, if there are grounds to believe, as in his case, that the extradition would result in torture.11 State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 14 November 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the merits and reiterated the facts of the case. 4.2 The State party recalls that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Referring to the criteria established by the Committee in its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, which require the complainant to prove that he or she runs a personal, present and substantial risk of torture if deported to his or her country of origin, the State party recalls that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion and, furthermore, that facts must be adduced which indicate that the risk is serious. 4.3 The State party acknowledges that the human rights situation in Turkey is worrying, particularly in the south-eastern part of the country, owing to the confrontation between the Government and PKK. However, this situation does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining the risk that the complainant would be subjected to torture upon return.12 The State party submits that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that he runs a personal, present and substantial risk of torture if extradited to Turkey. It adds that the State party’s authorities have obtained diplomatic assurances from Turkey in this connection. 4.4 First, the complainant has not established that he was subjected to torture in the past. Even if torture was a widespread problem in Turkey in the past, it was not practised systematically and in relation to all criminal offences. The State party refers to the 7 May 2015 assessment of the Federal Criminal Court. In particular, according to the judgment convicting the complainant, the medical records did not show the presence of torture marks on the complainant or his two co-accused. Given that the complainant was represented by several lawyers of his choice, it is implausible that he had not had his torture marks medically recorded. Furthermore, he never claimed that he had been tortured while serving his prison term. It appeared unlikely that S.Y would have consented to remain in prison instead of the complainant if he had been tortured after his arrest, as the complainant claims. 8 9 10 11 12 6 See A/59/324, para. 35. See A/60/316, para. 46. Amnesty International, Annual Report 2015/2016: The State of the World’s Human Rights, 23 February 2016. Reference is made to communication No. 63/1997, Arkauz Arana v. France, decision adopted on 9 November 1999, para. 11.5. See communication No.106/1998, N.P. v. Australia, Views adopted on 6 May 1999, para. 6.4.