7.2 The State party refers to the text of article 3 of the Convention, and argues that the author has invoked the general situation of the Kurds in Turkey to substantiate his fear of being subjected to torture, but has not demonstrated that he personally risks being subjected to treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention. 7.3 The State party refers to its general asylum policy with regard to Kurds from Turkey and states that its authorities examine regularly and carefully the situation in the different regions of Turkey. The State party acknowledges that it is true that in some areas the situation of the Kurd population is difficult because of armed conflict between Turkish security forces and guerrilla movements. However, the State party states that these conflicts are limited to certain regions and that it is not justified on this basis to proceed to a global judgement of all asylum claims of Kurds. The State party maintains that Kurds are not threatened in all regions in Turkey and that it is sufficient to examine in each case individually whether the appellant is personally affected by the situation and whether he could establish himself in another region. 7.4 The State party emphasizes that it does not contest the author’s conviction and periods of detention between 1981 and 1985. However, it argues that these events happened too long ago to justify the author’s departure from Turkey in 1990. Also, the probability that the author was tortured between 1981 and 1985 does not justify the conclusion that substantial grounds exist that he will be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey today. In this context, the State party explains that in terms of Swiss asylum practice, a causal link must be established between the acts of persecution against an appellant and his decision to flee the country. In the author’s case, this link cannot be established. 8.1 Finally, the State party recalls that Turkey ratified the Convention on 2 August 1988 and has recognized the competence of the Committee under article 22 to receive and examine individual communications. Consequently, Turkey is under an obligation to take measures to prevent acts of torture in its territory. Further, the State party notes that Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, that it has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and recognizes the right of individual petition as well as the obligatory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Turkey has ratified the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and is subject to inspection by the European Committee. 8.2 The State party refers to the Committee’s views in communication No. 13/1993 (Mutombo v. Switzerland) where the fact that Zaire was not a party to the Convention formed part of the Committee’s deliberations leading to the conclusion that the State party was under an obligation not to expel Mr. Mutombo to Zaire. The State party draws the Committee’s attention to the serious and paradoxical consequences if the Committee were to decide that the return of the author to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention by Switzerland, bearing in mind that Turkey is not only a party to the Convention but also has accepted the Committee’s competence to examine individual complaints. Counsel’s comments 9.1 By submission of 10 November 1995, counsel states that, on 6 December 1994, the author wrote a letter to the Prosecutor in Izmir to ask him for a copy of his record. He has received no reply, but in January 1995 the police came to see the author’s former neighbours in Izmir and inquired after him. According -72-