CAT/C/32/D/214/2002 Page 8 incompatible with the requirement to exhaust all available domestic remedies, laid down in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee noted that the complainant had lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court on 22 July 2002, which had been dismissed by the Court by formal decision dated 30 August 2002. In the absence of a manifest failure to comply with the requirement in article 22, paragraph 5(b), of the Convention, the Committee was satisfied that, in the light of the circumstances of the case and in conformity with general principles of international law, [Note for Spanish translator: The highlighted part of the sentence should be inserted into the Spanish version, where it is currently not included] the complainant had exhausted all available domestic remedies. 7.3 Accordingly, the Committee decided on 30 April 2003, that the complaint was admissible. State party’s observations on the merits 8.1 By note verbale of 24 February 2003, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint, arguing that the complainant had failed to substantiate a personal risk of torture in the event of his deportation to Turkey. 8.2 By reference to the Committee’s General Comment 1 on the interpretation of article 3 of the Convention, the State party stresses that the burden is on the complainant to present an arguable case for establishing a personal and present risk of torture. It considers the complainant’s Kurdish origin or the fact that he sympathizes with the PKK insufficient for that purpose. 8.3 The State party submits that the different versions about the severity of the torture allegedly suffered by the complaint after his arrest in Turkey raise doubts about his credibility. While he had first stated, before the Federal Agency, that he had been insulted and thrown into dirty water, he later, before the Wiesbaden Administrative Court, supplemented his allegations to the effect that he had been lifted up with his hands tied behind his back and a stick placed under his arms. 8.4 For the State party, the author failed to prove his PKK membership, or any remarkable political activities, during exile. In particular, the letter by Mr. F. S. merely stated that the complainant had participated in cultural and political activities in Germany, without specifying any of them. Moreover, the State party argues that the mere claim to be a PKK member is not as such sufficient to substantiate a personal danger of being tortured, in the absence of a prominent role of the complainant within that Organization. Out of the more than 100.000 persons proclaiming themselves PKK members during the “self-incriminating campaign” in 2001, not a single case of subsequent persecution by Turkish authorities was reported. 8.5 While conceding that participation in PKK training for a leadership role might subject a party member to personal danger upon return to Turkey, the State party denies that the complainant ever participated in such training; he did not raise this