CAT/C/45/D/373/2009 involvement in the PKK should be regarded as having been at a low level, despite his claims that he had educated new PKK recruits and was a leader of a PKK base (until 1995). He had been in the PKK for a long time but had not participated in active combat for the PKK. Against this background, the State party questions whether he would be of much interest to the Turkish authorities. 4.12 The State party submits that it was aware of the fact that all individuals dealing with the PKK are criminally prosecuted and sentenced. It refers to a report by the Swedish Embassy in Ankara and submits that a founder of an illegal and armed organization or a person in a leading position in such an organization can be sentenced to 10-15 years imprisonment. If the organization is classified as a terrorist organization, it results in a 50% increase in the sentence under the Turkish Anti-Terrorist Law. Membership of an illegallyarmed organization can result in 7.5-15 years’ imprisonment (including the 50% increase). Thus, the State party does not dispute the first-named complainant’s claim that he runs the risk of being arrested and tried on his return to Turkey. It, however, submits that no reason has emerged for believing that he would be sentenced to more severe punishment than other persons in the same situation. It reiterates the arguments by the Migration authorities and submits that the punishment that he risks is not disproportionate to the crime of membership of the PKK, considering that he has been active in an organization that is considered a terrorist organization by the Turkish government and EU. It adds that due to the Turkish government’s declaration of zero tolerance of torture and legislative changes, there are increased possibilities for persons who have been subjected to torture to report the perpetrators. 4.13 The State party submits that the first-named complainant has not 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 submits that the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment by a non-governmental entity or by private individuals without the consent or acquiescence of the government falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. In any event, it contends that the claim is not substantiated. It questions whether there is a risk of the firstnamed complainant being of interest to the PKK now, considering the time that had elapsed since he left Turkey. It submits that if such risk exists he would most certainly be able to obtain protection from the Turkish authorities. 4.14 In relation to the second-named complainant, the State party agrees with the Migration court’s assessment that the complainants have a large family in Turkey. Should both parents be convicted and imprisoned it would be the responsibility of the Turkish authorities to decide on her care. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 11 December 2009, the complainants challenged the State party’s argument as to the low level of the first-named complainant’s involvement in PKK activities. They claim that he was a member for a long time and because of his elevated position he served in many countries. 5.2 The complainants submit that a criminal case against the first-named complainant (No.1999/190) in Van is still open in relation to his membership of a terrorist organization. If returned he would be sentenced to 15 years in prison. He adds that the occurrences of torture in Turkey have increased. 5.3 He submits that the Migration Courts were aware of the criminal case against him as well as of the increasing occurrences of torture in Turkey. 6