CAT/C/45/D/349/2008 complainant regarding the possibilities of escaping from the PKK. During her asylum procedure, she stated that she was not allowed to leave the PKK and described the consequences for those who tried to escape. However, she also stated that she was allowed to see her uncle outside the guerrilla area and that the rules were changed in 2004 so that those who wanted to leave could do so. Complainant’s comments 4.1. On 15 April 2009, the complainant disputed the State party’s arguments on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. 4.2. She provides a statement from the Diyarbakir Branch of the Human Rights Association in Turkey, dated 13 August 2008 to support her claims. This statement indicates that cruel and inhuman treatment is often used by the security forces; that people who had been denied refugee status and deported back to Turkey are frequently arrested upon arrival at the airports and questioned with the use of physical force and psychological pressure. It submits that there is a warrant against the complainant, issued on the basis of her being a member of an armed terrorist organization and quotes the number of the criminal case initiated against her by a prosecutor in Diyarbakir (2005/298). The statement declares that complaints lodged with them about torture in the region have been steadily increasing since 2004 and that these had increased by 260% between 2007 and 2008 alone (172 and 434 torture complaints registered respectively in 2007 and in 2008). With regard to former PKK members, the Association claims that they are forced to confess, provide information about the PKK and the locations of its bases and participate in combat against their former comrades. Additionally, the Association states that in the event that both the complainant and her husband are returned and arrested, their child will be left to live in the streets. 4.3. The complainant also provides copies of decisions of the Migration Board and the Migration Court on cases similar to the complainant’s case, where former PKK members had been granted refugee status in Sweden. She maintains that according to their own practice the authorities should have granted asylum to the complainant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee: Admissibility considerations 5.1. Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a, and b), that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that all available domestic remedied have been exhausted. 5.2. As to the complainant’s allegation that if returned to Turkey she would be killed by the PKK in retaliation for leaving the organization without permission, the Committee considers that the issue of whether the State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention.2 Thus, the Committee finds that this claim is inadmissible in accordance with rule 107 (c) of the Committee's rules of procedure. 5.3. The Committee takes note of the State party’s contention that the communication is manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible, as the complainant’s assertion that she is 2 6 See G.R.B v Sweden, 83/1997, Views adopted on 15 May 1998.