CAT/C/54/D/540/2013 8.3 The Committee refers to its general comment No. 1, to the effect that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to be shown to be highly probable, the Committee recalls that the burden of proof normally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk. The Committee also recalls that, as indicated in its general comment No. 1, while it gives considerable weight to the findings of the State party’s bodies, the Committee may freely assess the facts of each case in the light of the particular circumstances. 8.4 In this case, the Committee considers that the facts as presented do not permit it to conclude that the complainant would at present run a real, foreseeable and personal risk of torture in the event of his return to Turkey. The Committee observes that, on 2 March 2007, the Federal Office for Migration noted inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s account during his asylum proceedings. On 13 January 2009, the Federal Administrative Tribunal rejected the complainant’s appeal on the grounds that it was implausible that he was being sought by the Turkish authorities, particularly given that: he had left Turkey when he was 11 years old and had not returned since; he had initially claimed never to have received military training or engaged in fighting; he had never engaged in any political activities; and all his relatives who had been active within the PKK had been dead for between 10 and 15 years, with the exception of an uncle who was serving a life sentence in prison. 8.5 The Committee observes that, on 18 February 2013, the Tribunal, upon considering a new appeal filed in connection with a second asylum request, rea ffirmed the conclusions of previous decisions regarding the implausibility of the complainant’s claims and examined whether his health situation warranted reviewing the original decision issued by the Federal Office for Migration. The Tribunal acknowledged that the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, but held that his condition was the result of events that had occurred in Iraq, when he was working for the American army; it could not be imputed to Turkey or cited to suggest any danger i n the event of a return to Turkey. The Tribunal also observed that the complainant could receive appropriate medical care, including psychological support, in Turkey. 8.6 The complainant has not produced any evidence before the Committee to dispute those conclusions, such as the existence of any criminal proceedings against him, nor has he claimed to have been subjected to torture or ill -treatment in Turkey. Even if he had fought in the ranks of the PKK between 1993 and 1996, as he argues before the Committee, those events date back almost 20 years to when the complainant was just 11 to 14 years old. The Committee is of the opinion that those activities’ limited scope and remoteness in time, coupled with the facts that no criminal proceedings have been brought against the complainant in Turkey and that he has not engaged in any political activities since leaving Turkey, including in Switzerland, indicate that those activities are not sufficiently relevant for establishing a personal risk. 8.7 The complainant has also referred to war injuries in his arm and chest, which have been medically established to be consistent with shrapnel wounds. The complainant has not, however, claimed that these injuries are the result of torture or ill-treatment by the Turkish authorities; rather, they were sustained during a wartime bombing by the Turkish army. 8.8 As to the complainant’s health, the Committee recognizes that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, as medically certified and acknowledged by the State party authorities. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that, according to the medical reports submitted, the condition was triggered by traumatic events that the complainant experienced in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, when he took part in military operations with the American army. Accordingly, his health situation cannot be considered as an element in assessing the risk he faces in the event of a return to GE.15-11115 9/10