active membership in the Yekiti party and opposition to the Syrian authorities. Lastly, the Committee considers that the complainants have not shown involvement in opposition political activities in Switzerland. 6.8The Committee considers that the above-mentioned documents were produced by the complainants only in response to decisions by the Swiss authorities to reject their application for asylum, and that the complainants have failed to offer any coherent explanation of the delay in making submissions. 6.9Regarding the 2001 Amnesty International report, in addition to the contradictions pointed out by the State party concerning the conclusions drawn regarding the complainants’ political activities in Syria, the Committee notes that the information relating to measures that might affect persons returning to Syria after a long stay abroad is invoked in general terms without being linked in a relevant manner to the specific cases of the complainants, and is contradicted by the information transmitted by the State party, in submissions which the complainants have not subsequently contested. It is also apparent that the Kurdish origin of the complainants would not in itself constitute a reason for ill-treatment or torture in Syria. 6.10Lastly, the Committee notes that the complainant Mrs. T. has submitted no arguments as to the risk of her being subjected to illtreatment in the event of return to Syria. 6.11Consequently the Committee considers that the complainants have not demonstrated the existence of serious grounds suggesting that their return to Syria would expose them to real, specific and personal risk of torture. 7.The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, considers that returning the complainants to the Syrian Arab Republic would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. Notes Complaint No. 193/2001 Submitted by:Ms. P.E. (represented by counsel) Alleged victim:Ms. P.E. State party:France Date of complaint:24 September 2001 Date of decision:21 November 2002 The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 21 November 2002, Having considered complaint No. 193/2001, submitted to the Committee against Torture under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Having taken into account the information made available to it by the author of the complaint and the State party, Adopts the following decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention. 1.1The complainant, P.E., a German national, born on 26 May 1963 in Frankfurt, was extradited by France to Spain on 7 November 2001. She claims that she was the victim of a violation by France of article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. She is represented by counsel. 1.2In accordance with article 22, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Committee transmitted the complaint to the State party on 5 December 2001. At the same time, in pursuance of rule 108 of its rules of procedure, the Committee requested the State party not to extradite the complainant to Spain while her complaint was under consideration by the Committee.a The facts as submitted by the complainant 2.1In November 1996,b the complainant was arrested in the Landes region in the company of her partner, Juan Luis Agirre Lete, during a French customs check, and placed in pre-trial detention in Paris. Following her arrest, she was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment on 23 February 1999 on charges of participating in a conspiracy as an alleged member of the Basque separatist organization, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (Basque Fatherland and Liberty) (ETA).c 2.2As soon as she was arrested, the Spanish authorities made a first request for her extradition, but the request was later withdrawn on grounds of mistaken identity. A second request for extradition was lodged by the Spanish authorities a year later, alleging cooperation with an armed group, on the basis of evidence that was claimed to be questionable but was given a favourable reception by the French authorities. 2.3A third request for extraditiond was lodged by Spain on the basis of a statement made by a certain Mikel Azurmendi Penagarikano, who was arrested in Seville on 21 March 1998 by the Spanish Civil Guard and who is alleged to have suffered a variety of treatment in breach of the Convention while being held. The complainant adds that Mr. Azurmendi’s partner was arrested at the same time and also suffered treatment in breach of the Convention.