CAT/C/44/D/356/2008 2.6 On 9 October 2002, the complainant left Turkey. He applied for political asylum in Switzerland on 11 November 2002. His application was rejected by the Federal Office for Migration (FOM) 3 on 16 June 2003, as a non-credible. On 18 August 2008, the Federal Court for Administrative Matters rejected (CAM) the complainant’s appeal against the negative decision of the Federal Office for Migration. 2.7 The complainant points out that the Federal Court had argued, inter alia, the reports of independent human rights organizations (such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey) attributed responsibility to the PKK, contrary to the complainant’s allegations. According to the complainant, however, there was no guarantee that the NGOs’ information was correct, and in addition, over the years, more and more incidents involving security forces covert operations outside of the hierarchy of command 4 have become known. 2.8 The complainant adds that, according to the Federal Court, there were no details about the situation of his cousin and their friend or the death of his father. The Federal Court has also concluded that the complainant’s uncle’s death was not related to the authorities and was thus not relevant to the case. According to the complainant, he could not provide supporting information, as (1) his friend disappeared during his military service and there was no information on his whereabouts; (2) he did not witness his father’s torture, but was informed about it by his relatives; (3) he was now in a possession of a testimony of a person who was granted asylum in Switzerland in 2006, who confirmed having spent about three years in the same prison as his cousin (who had witnessed the 1993 attack); the complainant points out, in particular, that this person recalls the bad physical and psychological condition of the complainant’s cousin in prison; (4) his uncle’s death was suspicious, as his uncle was initially brought to a police station, and he was transported to a hospital only later, and died during the trip. 2.9 The complainant notes further that the Federal Court has finally noted the long period between the attack of the village (1993) and the complainant’s father’s death (1997) on the one hand, and the complainant’s departure to Switzerland (2002) on the other hand. Lastly, the Court considered that there would be no risk for the complainant during his presumable future military service in Turkey. The complainant claims that the Swiss authorities have failed to take into account his poor education, and he explains that he was never informed on what exact grounds he was released in 1993, and whether his release was ordered by a court. He claims that he would face problems in Turkey. His torture in 1993, his sympathy to the Kurdish cause, the long life underground and his absence from the country would, according to the complainant, make him suspicious. According to the complainant, at present, torture remains widespread in Turkey, with respect to people suspected of being uncle directly to the hospital were provided in the report, and, at the same time, his uncle’s aggressors had allegedly been released shortly afterwards by the police. 3 Called Federal Office for Refugees at that time. 4 The complainant invokes a report by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces and to a report of Amnesty International of 1996. He adds that two Turkish attorneys have tried to get information about the 1993 Daltepe incident form both TIHV (Human Rights Foundation of Turkey) and IHD (Human Rights Association) had recently learned that there was no relevant information in the archives of these organisations. 4