CAT/C/45/D/373/2009 4.7 On the issue of admissibility, the State party submits that it is not aware of the present matter having been or being subject to any other investigation or settlement. It also acknowledges that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. It, however, contends that the complainants’ claims fail to rise to basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. It, therefore, submits that the communication is manifestly unfounded and thus should be inadmissible. 4.8 On the merits, the State party notes that Turkey has ratified several major human rights instruments and signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. It states that Turkey cooperates with the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and accepts the publication of the Committee’s reports. It reiterates a policy of zero tolerance declared by the Turkish government and important legislative reforms to this end. It also notes that despite the efforts made the incidents of torture still occur, especially during arrest and outside detention centers. It refers to reports by human rights organizations1, which reported a rise in cases of torture and abuse during 2007. It submits that the most severe methods of torture have been eliminated, but incidents of ill-treatment during police custody continue and courts rarely convict security officials accused of torture and tend to issue lighter sentences when they do convict. The judiciary is still not independent from the executive and the proceedings are lengthy. It refers to the report by the US State Department 2007, which stated that those arrested for ordinary crimes were as likely to suffer torture and mistreatment in detention as those arrested for political offences, although they were less likely to report the abuse. It also cites the report issued by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs that members of the PKK should be considered a specific target group for individual civil servants who violate the prohibition on using torture. It, nevertheless, contends that concerns regarding the human rights situation in Turkey cannot lead to the conclusion that persons liable to be arrested on criminal charges ipso facto face a real risk of torture. 4.9 The State party submits that it must take into account the recent developments in the efforts made by the Turkish government to eradicate torture and submits that torture is not used systematically and the use that still occurs does not have the acquiescence of the Turkish state. Thus, the State party contends that it might be legitimate to question whether reported incidents of torture could be imputed to the Turkish state or whether they are rather viewed as criminal acts for which Turkey cannot be held responsible. 4.10 The State party submits that several provisions of the 2005 Aliens Act reflect the same principles as those laid down in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Thus, the Swedish authorities apply the same test when considering an application for asylum as the Committee. It notes that the national authorities conducting the interview are in a good position to assess the information submitted by the asylum seeker and to evaluate the credibility of his or her claims. The Migration Board took the decision after two extensive interviews and had sufficient information taken together with the facts and documentation. 4.11 The State party adds that the migration authorities did not question the first-named complainant’s involvement in the PKK, as well as his claim that he is wanted by the Turkish police and risk being arrested and put on trial. The State party concurs with the conclusions of the Migration authorities and submits that the first-named complainant’s 1 The 2008 Report issued by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the US State Department 2007 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Turkey, The British Home Office Country of Origin Information Report on Turkey, 29 August 2008, The British Home Office Operational Guidance Note on Turkey, 2 October 2008 and Amnesty International 2008 Annual Report and the Human Rights Watch World Report 2008. 5