whereabouts of the IHD office. Secondly, he gave conflicting accounts of the timing of the various events on the night of 10 May 1997 - he claimed he was held until midnight, and, after a two hour car journey, was questioned for a further two hours. This was inconsistent with his claim that he was later dropped off in his home town at 2.30 a.m. The State party further considers it implausible, as appears to transpire from the author’s account, that a person identified by the authorities as a potential informer would not immediately be asked for names of PPK and HADEP members. It concludes from the fact that the authorities did not specifically instruct him about his tasks as an informer and left him alone in the days following 10 May 1997, that they did not regard his as an important opposition figure. In his second interview with the IND, the complainant stated that he was only a passive member of HEDAP, and did not know any active members of ERNK. The State party thus does not consider that the author is regarded by the Turkish authorities as a significant Kurdish opposition figure. The State party adds that the police request to the complainant’s father for information about the complainant’s whereabouts did not suggest anything untoward, and that the information from the father about the authorities’ interest in his son’s whereabouts is unreliable in any event, because the father cannot be considered an objective source of information in relation to his son’s complaint. 4.9 In relation to the complainant’s political activities outside Turkey, the State party notes that no evidence was presented to substantiate these, and in any event, the activities cited are not significant. It rejects as unfounded the assertion that there is a real risk of these activities being known to the Turkish authorities. As to the complainant’s involvement in the occupation of the Greek ambassador’s residence in The Hague, the criminal proceedings against the complaint were dropped for lack of evidence. Even if the complainant’s involvement in this incident was known to the Turkish authorities, it was not sufficiently dissident in nature to cause them to target him. 4.10 The State party notes that the mistreatmento allegedly suffered by the complainant while under arrest in March 1995 is not of overriding relevance to the question at hand. The fact that a complainant has previously been subjected to torture is only one of the considerations identified by the Committee’s general comment as relevant to the consideration of a claim under article 3. The State party contends that the past mistreatment of the complainant, following a police raid that was not aimed at him personally, does not suggest that the author runs a personal risk of torture if returned to that country. Further, the torture allegedly suffered by the complainant in 1995 cannot be described as “recent”. Finally, following his release in April 1995, he experienced no difficulties with the authorities until 1997. In light of the above, the State party considers that there is no question of a violation of article 3 and that the complaint is unfounded. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments on the State party’s observations, dated 5 January 2003, the complainant challenges the State party’s doubts about his credibility. He affirms that not all local branches of the IHD had been closed at the time of his arrest in May 1997, and that such branches were both closed and opened regularly at that time. As to the discrepancies in the timing of the events of 10 May 1997, he states that the times given to the Dutch authorities were estimates only, and that he was very frightened at the time of the incident, which impaired his perception. He further states that he cannot be asked to account for the reasons why the Turkish 119