6.4 The State party then proceeds to review the overall human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic and comment on several of the documents submitted by the author with regard to the situation of Kurds in that country. While giving credence to some of the information provided, it recalls the Committee's practice, which holds that the existence in a country of gross, flagrant or massive violations of human rights does not in itself constitute grounds for stating that a person risks being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country. 6.5 Next the State party considers the author's personal situation with a view to confirming whether there were serious grounds for admitting that he was likely to be subjected to human rights violations in the Syrian Arab Republic. According to the State party, KDP-Iraq was not an illegal organization in Iraq; moreover, it appears to have enjoyed the support of the authorities. According to various sources, the Syrian security forces persecuted KDP activists only if the security of the Syrian State was threatened by their actions - for example, activities hostile to the Syrian regime, which does not seem to apply in the present case. The State party concludes that under these circumstances it can be concluded that the author ran no special risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention if he returned to the Syrian Arab Republic, particularly as the alleged arrests dated back six and eight years. 6.6 The State party maintains that the documents from KARKSwitzerland (2) and KDP-Europe submitted by the author certifying that he was a member of KDP-Iraq cannot in themselves prove that the author was likely to be subjected to prosecution or treatment that contravened article 3 of the Convention if he was sent back to his country. 6.7 According to the State party, the author never reported that he had been subjected to torture, either during the hearings at the transit centre or to the Federal Office for Refugees. The author's counsel apparently reproached the authorities with failing to question the petitioner on that specific point. The State party replies that it could "legitimately be expected that a person who subsequently claimed he had to leave his country for fear of being subjected again to torture would at least mention this circumstance when questioned in the host country about the reasons for applying for asylum". 6.8 The State party queries the fact that the author only produced a medical certificate dated 20 August 1996 (3) stating that he could have been subjected to torture in the past when he appeared before