CAT/C/54/D/540/2013 had not been back since. The Tribunal therefore found it implausible that he would be sought by the authorities. Moreover, at his hearing, the complainant claimed tha t he had never received military training or engaged in fighting. Testimony cited by the complainant established that he had never been involved in fighting and that his refusal to do so was the reason behind his departure. His later claims to the contrary were not deemed to be credible. The Tribunal thus decided that there was no particular reason for the Turkish authorities to view him as dangerous or suspicious, even though he, like thousands of others, had spent time at the Mahmur camp in Iraq. The Trib unal also observed that the complainant had never engaged in any political activities that would support the hypothesis that he was a wanted man. As to the risk of reprisals owing to the fact that the complainant is a relative of PKK activists, the Tribuna l noted that, in Turkey, there is no rule or practice whereby a family shares responsibility for a crime committed by one of its members. However, the authorities may put pressure on, or take reprisals against, family members of political opponents if the wanted person or political opponent concerned has significant involvement in an illegal political organization. In the present case, the Tribunal held that no such threat could be established inasmuch as all the relatives of the complainant who had been PKK members had been dead for between 10 and 15 years, with the exception of an uncle who had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 2002. No reason was seen why the Turkish authorities would use that to target the complainant. The Tribunal further noted that relatives of the complainant, namely his mother and several of his siblings, continued to live in Turkey without experiencing any problems and no members of his family had fled the country. 2.9 On 20 February 2009, the complainant requested the Federal O ffice for Migration to review its decision of 2 March 2007 (see para. 2.7). The Office, treating this as a second asylum request, summoned the complainant to a hearing on 29 April 2009 and subsequently rejected the request by decision of 5 June 2009. On 9 July 2009, the complainant appealed that decision. 2.10 In its ruling of 18 February 2013, the Federal Administrative Tribunal rejected the appeal. It began by considering whether the alleged facts warranted reviewing its decision of 13 January 2009, before addressing whether the complainant’s health, which was cited in support of his request, could justify a review of the 2 March 2007 decision of the Federal Office for Migration. The Tribunal reaffirmed the conclusions of previous decisions regarding the implausibility of the claims and, while recognizing that the complainant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, found that the condition could not be linked to his experiences as a PKK member and was more likely triggered by events that had taken place in Iraq while he was working for the American armed forces. The events, which had occurred in a third country, would thus not have the feared impact if he were to return to Turkey. The Tribunal further observed that the complainant could receive medical care in Turkey to preserve his physical and mental integrity. The appeal was therefore rejected. 2.11 The Federal Office for Migration then set a deadline of 19 March 2013 for the departure of the complainant, who claims to have exhausted the domestic rem edies available to him. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his deportation to Turkey would constitute a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. He contends that, as a result of his undeniable involvement with the PKK, 4 there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to torture if returned to Turkey. __________________ 4 4/10 The complainant has attached photographs of himself in combat uniform, along with five GE.15-11115