CAT/C/49/D/389/2009 judicial documents concerning the initiation of criminal proceedings against the complainant, the latter’s acquittal, his own statements at the 6 December 2007 hearing, and the fact that the complainant lived and worked for a year in Istanbul without having any problems with the authorities. At the 6 December 2007 hearing, the complainant actually stated that he was not wanted by the Turkish authorities but that he feared that one of the families in his village had a vendetta against him because he had visited the home of a married woman on the evening of 20 March 2003 while her husband was away. It also remains unclear why the complainant, after openly living and working in Istanbul, could not return there. 4.11 The State party adds that the complainant also argues in his communication that the Swiss authorities never considered his case on the merits. It is true that the Federal Office for Migration dismissed the complainant’s asylum application and the Federal Administrative Court upheld that decision. What is decisive in terms of article 3 of the Convention, however, is not the question of whether a substantive review of the asylum application as such was carried out, but whether a reasoned review was conducted of the legality of returning the applicant to his country in the light of the requirements of article 3 of the Convention. Such a review was, in fact, carried out. The Federal Office for Migration carefully weighed the relevant factors to assess the legality of the complainant’s return to Turkey in its decisions of 20 January and 28 April 2009. In its first decision, it referred to the outcome of the asylum proceedings in Germany, a country which had granted refugee status to the complainant’s family members but not, after considering his case, to him. The State party does not know why the complainant did not challenge that refusal in the German courts. 4.12 In its ruling of 5 March 2009, in which it dismissed the complainant’s appeal on grounds of late submission, the Federal Administrative Court nevertheless considered the various arguments put forward by the complainant to challenge the legality of his expulsion. In its review, the Federal Administrative Court explained its reasons for considering as unfounded the complainant’s claims about his risk of being subjected, upon his return, to treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a level of protection equivalent to that afforded by article 3 of the Convention. The Federal Administrative Court’s reasons included the fact that the complainant had stated that he lived for over a year in Istanbul, during which time he had no problems with the authorities; that he had then confirmed that he was not wanted by the authorities of his country of origin; that, if he had been in any danger in Istanbul, he would not have waited for over a year before leaving the city; that asylum proceedings in Germany lasted almost three years and that there is nothing to suggest that the complainant was unable to exercise his rights in Germany, particularly as four of his brothers were granted refugee status in that country and their complete file is therefore in the hands of the German authorities; that the proceedings held by the Federal Office for Migration lasted for over a year, during which time the complainant did not produce any evidence, such as depositions from his brothers who are refugees in Germany; and that the documents submitted to the Federal Administrative Court do not suggest that the Turkish authorities would be aware of the complainant’s activism in France and Germany. In response to an appeal lodged as part of the application for review, the Federal Administrative Court once again carried out a risk assessment in its ruling of 12 June 2009. A substantive administrative and judicial review of the risks that the complainant might face in the event of his return to Turkey was thus carried out on several occasions. 4.13 The State party therefore concludes that there is nothing to indicate that there are substantial grounds for fearing that the complainant would run a present and personal risk of being subjected to torture in the event of his return to Turkey. GE.13-40787 7