CAT/C/49/D/389/2009 5.5 The complainant notes that in December 2009, the Turkish Constitutional Court dissolved the Democratic Society Party (a political group which had succeeded the People’s Democracy Party after its dissolution in Turkey). This shows that people with close ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party continue to be watched and to suffer from repression, as do members of the dissolved People’s Democracy Party. The Constitutional Court’s decision has caused unrest in Istanbul. The situation remains tense. 5.6 In response to the State party’s proposal concerning a possible safe haven in Istanbul, the complainant replies that the security situation in the city remains uncertain. The complainant’s family lives in Europe, and he therefore no longer has any connections in Turkey, to say nothing of Istanbul, where, even before leaving, he had no social or family network. The conditions under which an internal safe haven could be a solution, which must be such that the complainant would have an opportunity to resettle and live in dignity, are not present. In addition, the Turkish authorities practise repression throughout the country, including Istanbul. 5.7 The complainant also notes that he would have to return through an airport, where he would automatically be checked by the authorities, who would see that he is the cousin of a Kurdistan Workers’ Party member who is currently serving a life sentence in prison. It is therefore highly likely that he would be arrested and held indefinitely. The questioning in itself would amount to persecution, which could also put other family members of the complainant in danger. Hence, there is a real risk of the complainant being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey. 5.8 On 1 June 2010, the complainant informed the Committee that he had submitted an application for review to the Federal Office for Migration on 31 May 2010. This application for review is based on the testimony given by the head of the village of Tilkiler on 26 March 2010, in which he talks about the trap into which the complainant is said to have fallen when he went to the home of a married woman (see paragraph 2.8 above). Additional observations by the State party 6. In a note verbale of 16 July 2010, the State party informed the Committee about the application for review which the complainant had submitted to the Federal Office for Migration on 31 May 2010. According to the State party the Federal Office for Migration dismissed this application on 14 June 2010, and the dismissal was confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court on 9 July 2010. Under the circumstances, the State party informs the Committee that, as an exceptional measure, it is not challenging the admissibility of the communication, since domestic remedies have again been exhausted. Additional observations by the complainant 7. On 9 July 2012, the complainant provided the Committee with a copy of a ruling of the Federal Administrative Court dated 18 June 2012 concerning a fourth application for review, which had been filed on 23 December 2010 when the case was already before the Committee. On 12 January 2011, the Federal Office for Migration denied this application, which was based on a medical report that stated that the complainant’s state of health had deteriorated. Its grounds for doing so were that applicants often become distraught when their applications for asylum are denied, but that it was the duty of medical personnel to help the applicant to accept the fact that he was to return to Turkey and that, once there, appropriate medical follow-up would be available. The Federal Administrative Court had upheld that denial on 18 June 2012, and domestic remedies were therefore exhausted at that point. GE.13-40787 9