2002), it can be inferred that there have been no major changes. 4.6As to the compatibility of the complainant’s projected return with article 3, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that the complainant must show a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture beyond a mere possibility, and that specific grounds beyond the existence of a consistent pattern of gross violations must exist. Applying these principles to the complainant’s case, the State party argues, in the light of the Committee’s recent jurisprudencef and the above-mentioned country reports, that the general situation in Turkey is not such as to automatically place any Kurd at risk. 4.7Concerning the complainant’s family ties and alleged political activities, the State party argues that no plausible case has been made that the complainant faces torture in Turkey on these grounds. In the most recent country report, the Minister points out that there are countless Turkish citizens with PKK family members without this relationship causing any significant problems. While relatives of prominent PKK members may be subject to extra scrutiny from the authorities and probably live under a certain amount of pressure, they cannot be said to have been persecuted on account of their family ties with PKK leaders. 4.8The State party adds that the complainant divorced his wife on 3 January 2002, so that those family ties no longer exist. 4.9Concerning the complainant’s allegation that he was arrested three times on account of HADEP membership, the State party points out that he was unconditionally released and free to continue his activities on each occasion, suggesting that the authorities do not have serious objections to the complainant. Indeed, the complainant himself states that he did not flee for these reasons, and thus no plausible case can be made for any risk of torture on this basis. 4.10Moreover, in terms of the complainant’s fear of adverse consequences based on his refusal to supply the authorities with information, the State party points out that after he refused such requests five times between 1993 and 1998, at no point did he suffer consequences. After he left his village, his brothers were interrogated about his whereabouts, but were released unconditionally thereafter. No evidence has been presented of any problems concerning other relatives after his departure. 4.11The State party concludes that no plausible, much less substantial, case has been made for the contention that the complainant would personally be subjected to treatment incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, his removal should be permitted to proceed. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions 5.1By letter of 14 October 2002, the complainant responded, arguing that the State party did not contest the complainant’s credibility. As to his divorce, he states that it is not just his wife, but also he himself, who is related to Abdullah Öçalan. In any event, the “guilt by association” deriving from a nine-year marriage did not disappear with divorce. He points out that he is not one of the countless Turkish citizens who have one or more PKK members in their family, but is related personally and through his ex-wife to the movement’s leader himself. Second, the country report of 29 January 2002 states that relatives of PKK members can count on increased interest from the authorities, an interest that is in proportion to the degree of relationship or the position in PKK of the suspected family member (unless the authorities consider that there are in fact no links). 5.2Responding to the State party’s comment that he was released unconditionally after each arrest, the complainant states that the fact of his rearrest showed that he could not continue his activities without problem. These arrests and ill-treatment showed that the authorities did have “serious objections” to him, even though he did not flee at the time. The complainant argues that the State party has not considered available information on the allegedly deteriorating position of HADEP and IHD members. 5.3As to the State party’s contention that previous threats to the complainant had not resulted in harm to him, the complainant states that he took the last threat before his flight seriously, as another IHD activist had been killed and the military was positioned close to his house. In any event, death threats from the authorities are in themselves serious, and the human rights situation in Turkey does not suggest the contrary. Rather, such threats should be seen as a policy of intimidation which can be qualified as “a psychological form of forbidden ill treatment”. 5.4Concerning the release of his brothers after his escape, the complainant contends that the very fact of their arrest shows that he is not a person in whom the authorities have no interest. In any event, their release does not conclusively show that there is no risk for the complainant in the event of his return. 5.5As to a reference in the 29 January 2002 country report that relatives of HADEP members are not pursued on the basis of political orientation, the complainant refers to the earlier, 13 December 2000 country report to the effect that, in the case of PKK activists and sympathizers, there are reliable indications that mistreatment and/or torture occurs not infrequently upon return. Returnees have their prior criminal history checked by the authorities upon return to the receiving country, and the complainant argues that the authorities’ previous interest in him would have them further investigate him upon his return. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee further notes that the State party concedes that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 6.2To the extent that the complainant suggests that such ill-treatment as he might face in Turkey falls within article 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 3.1 and 5.3), the Committee notes that the scope of article 3 extends only to torture and does not encompass treatment that falls short of that serious threshold. Those parts of the complaint, therefore, are inadmissible ratione materiae as falling outside the scope of article 3. With respect to the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention concerning as such, the