CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 3.3 Furthermore, the complainant maintains that the way the Danish authorities treated him and, in particular, the attempt to forcibly hand him over to the Turkish embassy in Copenhagen violated his rights under articles 12 and 16 of the Convention. 3.4 Regarding the general human rights situation in Turkey, the complainant refers to Amnesty International reports and to Committee’s case law3 as evidence that politically active Kurds are not safe from torture. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 In its observations dated 2 July 2014, the State party adds to the factual background of the communication and provides information about the criminal, asylum and return proceedings against the complainant. 4.2 The State party observes that the complainant entered Denmark in November 2010 without any valid travel documents. By the judgement of 11 December 2012 delivered by the District Court of Hillerød, the complainant was convicted of violations of the Danish Criminal Code4 and the Danish Act on Controlled Substances,5 having on 4 February 2012 and 4 November 2012, respectively, at the request of the police, identified himself by means of a Danish residence permit bearing a name different from the complainant’s and having been in possession of hashish for his own use. He was sentenced to 40 days’ imprisonment, expulsion from Denmark and a ban on re-entry for six years. 4.3 With regard to the asylum proceedings, the State party observes that the complainant applied for asylum in Denmark on 13 November 2012. On 31 May 2013, the Danish Immigration Service refused to grant him asylum and that decision was upheld by the Refugee Appeals Board in its decision of 30 August 2013. As his grounds for seeking asylum, the complainant stated to the Danish authorities that, in case of his return to Turkey, he feared being given a long prison sentence because he had been a member of PKK and the Kurdish Communities Union. He also expressed his fear that, as a conscientious objector, he would be given a long prison sentence and ordered to perform his compulsory military service, in which connection he feared being killed by the authorities because he was an ethnic Kurd. The complainant lastly stated that he feared that persons from PKK would kill him because he had fled during a training stay with PKK in mid-2010. 4.4 The State party points to certain inconsistencies and deficiencies in the information the complainant provided during asylum proceedings. Concerning the grounds for the negative asylum decision dated 30 August 2013, the State party observes that the Refugee Appeals Board found that the complainant was not credible because he had made inconsistent and incoherent statements fabricated for the occasion about several key elements of his asylum claim, notably about: (a) his conscientious objection to compulsory military service; (b) his membership of PKK, his related political activities and his detentions in that connection; (c) the episode of the confrontation between government forces and the PKK guerrilla unit that had taken place in the mountains on the way to the PKK training camp and the complainant’s reaction to this event; and (d) the television announcement in 2008 about the complainant being listed as wanted by the Turkish authorities. 3 4 5 4 See communications No. 373/2009, Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden, decision adopted on 19 November 2010 and No. 349/2008, Güclü v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 November 2010. Sections 164 (1) and 174. Section 1; see sections 3, 27( 1) and 2, schedule 1, list A (1), of the Executive Order on Controlled Substances.