CAT/C/45/D/373/2009 4.2 Until 1994, he was also involved in teaching new PKK recruits. He was a leader of the PKK from 1994-1995. At some point, he was also active in criticizing the policies and strategies of the organization, arguing that armed conflict would not be a successful strategy in reaching the political goals of the PKK. As a result, he had been accused by the PKK leadership of questioning the guerilla organization. One of his brothers had been imprisoned for seven months merely due to the first complainant’s membership in the PKK. 4.3 The State party admits that the Migration Board did not question the first-named complainant’s statement about his activities in the PKK and acknowledged the risk that he could be arrested and tried if returned to Turkey. However, it considered that there was no reason to believe that his sentence would be a more severe punishment than that of other persons in similar situations. It also referred to the Turkish government’s policy of zero tolerance of torture and legislation changes to that end, which increased the possibilities for persons who have been tortured to report the perpetrators. 4.4 The State party submits that in the appeal to the Migration Court the complainants added that the Migration Board had not taken into consideration that the first-named complainant would be prosecuted before a special criminal court in Turkey, namely the Heavy Penal Court and might be sentenced to life imprisonment The claim was allegedly supported by a human rights non-governmental organization and the first-named complainant’s lawyer in Turkey. The first-named complainant claimed that he would be subjected to torture and the second-named complainant would be forced to live in a public institution. He argues that the residence permits in similar cases had been granted. He was also threatened by the PKK during his time in Sweden. 4.5 On 2 September 2008, the Migration Court issued a decision, dismissing the appeal and arguing that the first-named complainant did not hold any prominent position within the PKK and had not participated in any combat on its behalf.. His actions could not be regarded as terrorist acts and he had spent relatively little time in Turkey. It confirmed that membership in a terrorist organization can entail up to 15 years imprisonment, however refugee status can not be based solely on the circumstance that the person risks punishment under legislation of their native country. It stated that the persecution should be distinguished from punishment for breach of law, adding that the punishment is not disproportionate considering that he has been active in a terrorist organization. Considering whether the complainants could be regarded as persons otherwise in need of protection, it pointed to the reforms that had been undertaken to address the problem of torture although, it noted that, despite the efforts made, incidences of torture still occur. However, it was neither systematic nor supported by the Turkish government. It added that the first-named complainant had not plausibly shown that he was at risk of persecution by the PKK due to his defection from the organization, as to make him in need of protection. It added that if he were to risk persecution by the PKK, it was the judicial and law enforcement authorities in Turkey that should offer him protection. Only if such protection is unsatisfactory, would there be a need for protection in Sweden and there was no indication that the authorities could not offer adequate protection. The Court also stated that the complainants had a large family in Turkey and should both parents of the second-named complainant be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, it would be the responsibility of the Turkish authorities to decide on her care. 4.6 The State party adds that before the migration authorities the first-named complainant claimed that he had never had a passport and submitted a copy of a transcript from the Turkish national register of citizens dated 2003 and an original transcript from the same register dated 2005. It submits that according to the transcript from 2003 he had been sought by the police at that time, while the latter original transcript contains no such information. 4