CAT/C/54/D/540/2013 3.2 The complainant claims to have taken part in the armed struggle of the PKK when he was still young (between the ages of 11 and 14). He witnessed t raumatic events, particularly acts of war, which had a serious impact on his mental health. 5 In addition, X-rays have revealed the presence of foreign metallic objects deemed to be consistent with shrapnel in the complainant’s arm and chest. 6 3.3 The complainant comes from a family known for its support of the PKK. His father, two of his uncles and four of his cousins were killed in combat, increasing the risk of his being targeted by the Turkish authorities. As the complainant himself is known to, and has attracted the attention of, the authorities, 7 he is personally at risk of being subjected to acts of torture in the event of his return. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 12 September 2013, the State party submitted its observations on th e merits. It noted that the complainant had merely reiterated to the Committee the reasons he had invoked before the national authorities, without providing any new evidence that might justify a review of the decisions taken by the Federal Office for Migra tion. The State party referred to the finding of the Federal Administrative Tribunal, which concluded that, as the complainant had left Turkey at the age of 11, had never been engaged in armed fighting and had not been back since, it did not seem plausible that the authorities would be looking for him or harbour suspicions about him. Moreover, all his relatives who had been active within the PKK had died, with the exception of an uncle who was in prison. 4.2 The State party reiterated that, according to article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exist substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be subjected to torture. Recalling the criteria established by the Committee in its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, which require the complainant to prove that he or she runs a personal, present and substantial danger of torture if deported to his or her country of origin, the State party submits that the Committee has already had occasion to examine communications in which complainants of Kurdish origin claimed that they would be at risk of being subjected to torture should they be returne d to Turkey. On those occasions, the Committee noted that the human rights situation in Turkey was of concern, particularly with regard to PKK militants. It concluded, however, that a given complainant would face a real and personal risk of torture upon re turn to Turkey only where additional individual elements could be established, in particular the extent of their political activities within the PKK, the existence of any criminal charges against them and whether they had been subjected to torture in the p ast. 8 4.3 The State party contends that the complainant has not submitted any individual elements showing that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Turkey. He mentions traumatic events that reportedly had a profound impact on his mental health. He also cites the presence of foreign objects consistent __________________ 5 6 7 8 GE.15-11115 testimonies by persons presenting themselves as former PKK combatants who met the complainant at the Mahmur camp. The complainant attached several medical certificates attesting to symptoms of post -traumatic stress disorder and bouts of depression. See footnote 3 above. The complainant attached a testimony dated 20 August 2010 and signed by the mayor of the village of Yardere, who maintains that he is often questioned about the complainant, his whereabouts and his activities, and says that he was recently summoned in that connection by the gendarmerie command in the village of Konakli. See, inter alia, communications No. 431/2010, Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 May 2013, and No. 373/2009, Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden, decision adopted on 19 November 2010. 5/10