CAT/C/38/D/281/2005** Page 5 The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 20 February 2006, the complainant commented on the State Party’s observations. She reiterates that she was tortured in Turkey during detention between 1993 and 1996. She affirmed that it is generally accepted that prior experiences of torture create a well-founded fear of being again subjected to this form of persecution upon return of a refugee to her country of origin. At that time she was subjected to torture on suspicion of PKK links. Today the same reasons are the basis of the current extradition request. Thus, according to her, the requirements of article 8 (b) of the Committee’s General Comment No.1 are met. 5.2 The complainant reiterated that she has obtained refugee status in Germany, where she claimed past torture during her asylum application, and notes that her past torture was found credible by German authorities. 5.3 As to the State party’s affirmation that the situation in Turkey has evolved, she observed that while Turkey has improved its record on torture, individuals in situations similar to hers have reportedly been subjected to torture in the recent past. 5.4 The complainant noted that the documents‡‡ presented by the Turkish authorities are vague and unclear. In substantiation, she provided the following translation of a part of an unspecified document:”Considering Elif Pelit’s membership in the illegal terrorist organization (as per the Article 168.2 of the Penal Code), she is sentenced to arrest in absentia. The arrest term is considered and has started on 2 December 2004 and will thus end on 3 December 2014.” 5.5 The complainant claimed that Turkey was seeking her extradition to punish her for her political opinions; her punishment was likely to include torture. 5.6 The complainant requests her immediate release, to enable her to return in Germany, where she enjoyed the status of refugee. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Admissibility considerations 6.1 The Committee examined the admissibility of the communication during its 36th session, in May 2006. It ascertained that the same matter was not and is not being considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and noted that the State party has not objected that domestic remedies have been exhausted. It noted the State party’s indication that it had received, from the Turkish authorities, diplomatic assurances in relation to the application in the complainant’s respect of the “rule of specialty”, pursuant to article14 of the European Convention on Extradition, and noted that the complainant had not presented any observation in this respect. It further observed that the matter in the present case was not about on which grounds and whether the complainant would be judged in the event of her removal to Turkey, but about whether she would be at risk of torture there. 6.2 The Committee further noted that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication because the complainant had failed to produce sufficient proof that in the ‡‡ It is unclear which documents the complainant exactly refers to.