2.2In 1997, the complainant joined the pro-Kurdish People’s Democracy Party (HADEP). He also collected information for the Human Rights Association (IHD) about alleged human rights abuses by Turkish authorities. He alleges that he was arrested several times and ill-treated in connection with these activities, and that the Turkish authorities sought information from him concerning PKK, HADEP and IHD. In May 1998 (after also being approached in 1993 and 1995), he was allegedly threatened with death if he did not provide this information. His family was also threatened with harm if he fled. Thereafter, he left his home village, departed Turkey by truck on 11 June 1998 and arrived in the Netherlands on 17 June 1998, where he alleges he continued his political activities.a 2.3On 18 June 1998, the complainant requested asylum and residence. After an interview had taken place in the presence of an interpreter, the State Secretary of Justice decided, on 8 February 2000, that his request for asylum was manifestly unfounded and, further, denied his request for residence on humanitarian grounds. 2.4On 7 March 2000, the complainant lodged an objection to this decision, supplying his grounds of objection on 24 March 2000. On 6 July 2000, he requested an injunction to prevent his expulsion. On 24 July 2001, the District Court of The Hague rejected the request for an injunction and declared the objection ill-founded. The Court found, inter alia, that there was no indication that article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (which has been interpreted to proscribe extradition to a country where an individual would face torture) would be violated in the complainant’s case, as the complainant had not shown that he in fact belonged to any categories of persons (such as PKK activists) who might be exposed to a higher risk of harassment or intimidation or worse on the part of the Turkish authorities. The complaint 3.1The complainant contends that there are substantial grounds to believe his removal to Turkey would result in torture or other forms of ill-treatment and would therefore violate article 3 of the Convention in light of the following factors: his political and human rights activities in Turkey, his alleged arrests and ill-treatment, his political activities in the Netherlands, his family relationship to Abdullah Öçalan, and the problems of his family.b 3.2The complainant refers to a variety of reports in support of his proposition that conditions in Turkey reveal a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. These emanate from human rights organizations,c newspapersd and a human rights commission of the Turkish Parliament.e 3.3The complainant states that the same matter has not been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1By letter of 29 March 2002, the State party advised that it had no objection to the admissibility of the communication. By letter of 31 July 2002, it disputed the merits of the communication, arguing that in the light of the national procedure followed, the Turkish human rights situation, the complainant’s personal circumstances and the compatibility of the proposed expulsion with article 3 of the Convention, there are no grounds to fear that the author would be subjected to torture. 4.2The State party recalls the procedure applied to the complainant. Aliens are admitted if they satisfy the requirements of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, if article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights so mandates, or if compelling humanitarian circumstances so require. Asylum seekers are promptly notified of their right to legal and other assistance. A first interview takes place as soon as possible after arrival, and does not concern the grounds for departure. A second interview (with legal advice and interpretation available) focuses on these reasons. The applicant (and counsel) may correct, or add to, the record of this interview. The decision on the application considers regular official country reports compiled by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, which also draw on reports of non governmental organizations. 4.3A notice of objection may be lodged against a negative decision, upon which a decision is made as to whether the applicant may remain in the State party pending the outcome of the objection proceedings. If denied permission to remain, an injunction may be sought from the District Court. The Court may simultaneously decide on the notice of objection and the injunction. Applicants arguing that expulsion would remove them to a country where a well founded fear of persecution on the basis of political or religious beliefs, their nationality, or membership of a particular race or social group exists may not be removed without special instructions from the Minister of Justice. 4.4On the current situation in Turkey, the State party notes that this situation and the Kurdish position in particular are constantly monitored by the Government and play a role in the decisions of the State Secretary of Justice in individual cases. It points out that after the reported death in April 1999 of an asylum seeker deported to Turkey, the State Secretary of Justice directed that all deportations of Kurds to Turkey be suspended pending investigation. In December 1999, following an official investigation by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the State Secretary decided to resume these deportations. This decision was upheld in March 2000 by the District Court of The Hague. 4.5The State party reviews recent country reports: on 3 September 1997, the Minister found that Kurds are not as such subject to persecution within the meaning of the Refugee Convention. They are also free to move internally in the event of difficulties, unless suspected of active espousal of the Kurdish cause. On 17 September 1999, the Minister found noticeable improvements, particularly in the light of focused international attention, with the main human rights issues in Kurdish areas being restrictions on freedoms of expression, association and assembly. The ability to seek better personal and economic circumstances elsewhere in Turkey remained open if necessary. On 13 December 2000, the Minister found certain positive trends, with Kurds substantially less at risk of involvement in military conflict and growing confidence in return and reconstruction. Pressures on the pro-Kurdish party HADEP had diminished and political dialogue was opening. On 4 May 2001, the Minister again refers to the freedoms of expression, association and assembly, while noting that Kurds are not persecuted merely by virtue of their ethnicity. From the most recent report (29 January