CAT/C/49/D/389/2009 3.2 The complainant describes his political activities in Turkey and the close supervision that he was under, primarily due to the well-known activism of members of his family. For these reasons, if he returned to Turkey he would face a personal, real and serious risk of being tortured. His forced repatriation would constitute a violation by Switzerland of article 3 of the Convention against Torture. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 7 January 2010, in its comments on the merits, the State party notes that, in his comments to the Committee, the complainant merely repeats the same arguments that he made to the national authorities. He provides no new information, other than three recent attestations, his birth certificate, family record book or identity card, to challenge the decisions of the Federal Office for Migration of 20 January and 28 April 2009 and the rulings of the Federal Administrative Court of 5 March and 28 April 2009. He fails to provide the Committee with evidence of the existence of any politically motivated criminal case against him or documents corroborating his allegations of ill-treatment; nor does he give any reason why he was able to live and work in Istanbul for a year without having any problems with the authorities. 4.2 Recalling the wording of article 3, the State party refers to the criteria established by the Committee in its general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, in particular paragraph 6 and subsequent paragraphs, which concern the need for there to be a personal, present and serious risk of being subjected to torture in the event of expulsion to the country of origin. The State party notes that the Committee has considered communications on many occasions in which complainants claimed to be at risk of being subjected to torture if they were returned to Turkey. The Committee has observed that the human rights situation in Turkey is a major concern, particularly with regard to the fate of Kurdistan Workers’ Party activists, who are frequently tortured by law enforcement officers, and that this practice is not limited to any particular area of the country.1 4.3 In those cases, when the Committee has reached the conclusion, in respect of article 3 of the Convention, that the complainants were in personal and present danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey, it has done so when it had been established that they were politically associated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and had been detained and tortured prior to leaving Turkey or when their allegations of torture had been substantiated by independent sources by means of, for example, medical certificates.2 In two communications involving Switzerland, however, the Committee decided that the return of the complainants to Turkey would not expose them to any real risk of torture because the complainants’ collaboration with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party had not been established.3 4.4 In the present case, on several occasions the complainant told the domestic authorities that he was a supporter of the People’s Democracy Party and Democratic People’s Party. However, he has told the Committee that he is a member of both parties, which would mean that his name is known to the police and that he would run the risk of 1 2 3 GE.13-40787 The State party cites communication No. 97/1997, Orhan Ayas v. Sweden, Views adopted on 12 November 1998, para. 6.4. Ibid., para. 6.5; see also communication No. 101/1997, Halil Haydin v. Sweden, Views adopted on 20 November 1998, para. 6.7. The State party refers to communication No. 112/1998, H.D. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 30 April 1999, para. 6.5; and communication No. 107/1998, K.M. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 16 November 1999, para. 6.6. 5