CAT/C/49/D/389/2009 being recognized if he were to return. There is nothing in the present case to suggest that the complainant is wanted in Turkey. Quite to the contrary, he has told the Swiss authorities that he is not wanted by the Turkish authorities. Moreover, the Turkish authorities would not have released the complainant in March 2003 after remanding him in custody if he had really been on the wanted list. This would be all the more surprising in view of the fact that several members of his family had already obtained refugee status in Germany by that time. 4.5 The torture or ill-treatment allegedly suffered by the complainant in the past is one factor to be taken into account in assessing the complainant’s risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to his country. The complainant points out that he was repeatedly ill-treated by the Turkish authorities. He has not, however, supplied any evidence to support his claims, either to the domestic authorities or to the Committee. 4.6 Regarding the complainant’s political activities, in his communication he alleges that he was an active member of the People’s Democracy Party and/or Democratic People’s Party in Turkey. During the hearings held by the Federal Office for Migration, however, he failed to mention any involvement in the People’s Democracy Party. As for the Democratic People’s Party, on two occasions the complainant stated that he was simply a party supporter and not a member. The statements made during the hearings also show that he held no specific position or function within the People’s Democracy Party or the Democratic People’s Party. It is also well known that persons prominently involved in a Kurdish political party are always brought before the courts. Yet, the complainant failed to mention a single “political” criminal case. The only criminal proceedings against him related to morality issues; their non-political nature is confirmed by the fact that they were dealt with by the Gaziantep criminal court, which has no authority to rule in political cases. Moreover, in the event, the court acquitted the complainant. 4.7 In addition, there is no indication in the file that the complainant is wanted by the national (or even regional) authorities in Turkey. First, he clearly admitted that he was not wanted at the hearing on 6 December 2007. Second, as already mentioned by the State party, it would make no sense for the police, having remanded him in custody in connection with the above-mentioned criminal proceedings, to release him if he had been wanted. 4.8 The complainant makes particular mention of his political activities in Switzerland and Germany. As he is not known to the Turkish authorities, or wanted by them in connection with his political activities in Turkey, his participation in and/or involvement in the organization of demonstrations in Switzerland is unlikely to attract the attention of the Turkish authorities. Furthermore, these alleged activities were only mentioned at a late stage in the aforementioned proceedings and then only in vague terms. 4.9 The State party points out some inconsistencies in the complainant’s allegations and in connection with his credibility. As is clear from the decision issued by the Federal Office for Migration on 20 January 2009, the complainant admitted that he had lied about fleeing the country. Initially, he had claimed to have lived in Istanbul until 27 September 2007, that is, a few days before his arrival in Switzerland. Confronted with the results of inquiries made by the Federal Office for Migration in neighbouring countries, he had to admit that he had concealed his stay in Germany between 2004 and 2007. This has damaged his credibility. 4.10 The State party notes that the complainant’s application for asylum was rejected by the German authorities on 16 April 2007. Although some members of his family have obtained refugee status in Germany, the complainant did not appeal against that decision, apparently preferring to move to Switzerland to reapply for asylum on 1 October 2007. In its second decision of 28 April 2009, the Federal Office for Migration concluded that the complainant’s claims that he was being sought by the authorities were unconvincing. This conclusion was based, inter alia, on the following facts: the absence of any police or 6 GE.13-40787