CAT/C/45/D/349/2008 The Board also stated that such punishment would not be disproportionate considering that she had been a member of a terrorist organization. Moreover, the Board quoted recent Turkish policies of “zero tolerance” towards torture and stated that even though isolated incidents of torture still occur, they saw no evidence indicating that it would take place in the complainant’s case. The Board also stated that she had not proven that the PKK would kill her for leaving the organization without permission. 2.7. The complainant appealed against the Migration Board decision to the Migration Court (the County Administrative Court in Stockholm). On 8 January 2007, Amnesty International filed a submission to the Court supporting the complainant’s appeal. It argued that she wouldn’t get a fair trial in Turkey and would be exposed to torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment. It stated that persons in her situation do not get legal representation and are forced to confess under torture. 2.8. On 22 November 2007, the Migration Court rejected her appeal. The complainant applied for leave to appeal the Migration Court decision in front of the Migration Court of Appeal, but she was denied such leave on 10 June 2008. The complaint 2.9. The complainant claims that upon her return to Turkey she will be arrested and tortured by the authorities and/or by the PKK. She states that she will not get a fair trial and will be sent to prison, where she won’t be protected from the PKK. 2.10. The complainant refers to the British Home Office guidelines on the treatment of PKK members in Turkey, to the EU Commission’s report on Turkey, to Amnesty International reports from July 2007, and to Canadian immigration “guidelines” on the PKK and Turkey, all of which indicate that there are instances of ill-treatment and torture in the Turkish correctional system, two of which explicitly indicate that security forces target PKK members. Most of the reports are dated 2007. State party's observations 3.1. On 30 January 2009, the State party partially reiterates the facts presented by the complainant in her initial communication to the Committee. It also points to the reforms that have been undertaken by the Turkish authorities to address the problem of torture, although acknowledging that incidents of torture still occur. It reiterates the reasoning of the Migration Board and states that the PKK is considered to be a terrorist organization both by Turkey and the European Union. The State party recognizes that the complainant is likely to be arrested, tried and imprisoned, but submits that refugee status cannot be solely based on the fact that a person risks punishment according to their domestic legislation. 3.2. The State party notes that the complainant’s activities were at a relatively low level and maintains that she has not demonstrated that she would risk “disproportionate punishment” if tried in Turkey. She has not demonstrated a risk of being subjected to persecution, threats and harassment from the PKK, which would make her in need of protection. Even if she were to risk such treatment, the State party maintains that it is the responsibility of the Turkish judicial and law enforcement authorities to protect her. 3.3. The State party recalls that one of the judges of the Migration Court had a different opinion, proposed in favour of the complainant and stated that the information on the complainant’s activities in the PKK is sufficient to make her a person “otherwise in need of protection” and that she should accordingly be granted residence permit in Sweden. 4