CAT/C/61/D/747/2016 2.7 On 7 June 2012, the Federal Office of Justice issued an arrest warrant, on the basis of which the complainant was arrested on 21 June. He was subsequently released on bail because of his severe psychiatric condition. 2.8 On 6 July 2012, the complainant challenged the extradition request before the Federal Criminal Court, arguing that the Turkish authorities were seeking his extradition for a political crime, which should nullify the extradition request. 2.9 On 6 August 2012, the complainant requested asylum. On 29 January 2014, the Federal Office for Refugees granted him temporary admission. It found that he fulfilled the criteria for refugee protection under article 1 A of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees but was subject to the exclusion under article 1 F (b) for having committed a murder. It also stated that the complainant would face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he were returned to Turkey, and on that basis ordered his temporary admission. On 19 February 2014, the Office amended its decision to reflect the fact that the complainant had enjoyed resident status in Switzerland. 2.10 On 18 July 2014, the Federal Office of Justice authorized the complainant’s extradition pending a decision by the Federal Criminal Court on whether the extradition had political grounds. On 6 August, the complainant challenged the extradition decision before the Court. 2.11 On 7 May 2015, the Federal Criminal Court rejected the complainant’s claims of 6 July 2012 and 6 August 2014. The Court stressed that the complainant had not been recognized as a political refugee. It considered that the complainant’s claim that he was convicted on the basis of evidence obtained through torture had not been credible. If returned to Turkey, the complainant would have to serve his sentence, and therefore “a prognosis about persecution after the final release is impossible”. The Court also noted that the reasons which had led to his being categorized as an “inconvenient person” remained unclear and that therefore the complainant’s fear of persecution remained unsubstantiated. In the complainant’s case, even if a political component existed, the Court maintained that the extradition was not a priori inadmissible. The complainant adds that the widespread practice of torture in Turkey at the time of his arrest in 1988 was undisputed. On 15 May, he was placed in extradition detention. On 22 May, he appealed. On 12 August, the Federal Supreme Court stated that there should be valid reasons to justify extradition after the asylum authorities had established that a risk of torture existed and that such reasons had not been established. Therefore, the Court partly reversed the 7 May 2015 decision and remitted the case to the Federal Office of Justice for new consideration and further investigation. 2.12 After the 7 May 2015 decision of the Federal Criminal Court, the complainant was admitted to a psychiatric clinic in Zurich because his health condition had deteriorated. While in the clinic, he attempted to commit suicide. He received special treatment for persons in custody who were at risk of suicide until 6 July, when he was transferred to a specialized prison in Burgdorf that provided facilities for persons at risk of suicide. On several occasions thereafter, he was admitted to a psychiatric clinic in Bern as an imminent risk of suicide. Doctors told counsel that the complainant was assessed in the clinic under the Istanbul Protocol to identify whether he was a victim of torture; however, the results of the assessment were never provided to the complainant or to his counsel. 2.13 On 17 September 2015, the Federal Office of Justice presented the results of its further investigation. In particular, Turkish authorities had explained that there was no “political data sheet” with respect to the complainant, and transmitted a decision of the second jury court of Gaziantep dated 22 June 2015 to maintain the extradition request. The Swiss Embassy in Ankara stated that there would be no risk of torture for the complainant in Turkey, even if safety problems persisted in Turkish prisons in relation to the war against the PKK insurgency that had been waged since July 2015; however, as the complainant had no connection with the conflict, he would not be at personal risk of torture. On 5 October, the complainant commented on the Office’s findings. He argues that the Swiss Embassy was not fully familiar with his case and had ignored its political dimension, specifically his PKK involvement. 3