CAT/C/44/D/356/2008 involved with the PKK. Moreover, in the army, he wouldn’t have any protection against persecution. 2.10 According to the complainant, in general, the Swiss authorities have failed to examine the evidence in his case in its totality, and they instead have concentrated on specific elements, which were declared non-established. The complainant’s torture allegations were not sufficiently addressed by the authorities, even if he had described them in a sufficiently detailed manner. Although his torture scars are still visible, nobody from either the Federal Office of Migration or the CAM examined them in person or provided comments on them. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that his forcible return to Turkey would constitute a breach by Switzerland of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 The State party presented its observations on admissibility and merits by Note verbale of 13 March 2009. It recalls the facts of the case and notes that, with one exception, the complainant presents to the Committee exactly the same allegations as those presented to and examined by the Swiss asylum authorities and the Federal Court for administrative matters. The new element is a letter signed by an individual who alleges that he has been kept in the same prison with one of the complainant’s cousins. 4.2 The State party affirms that its asylum authorities’ decisions are correct and legally grounded. The Federal Office of Migration has found the complainant’s allegations as lacking in credibility and contradictory. It had noted that the complainant never documented the judicial proceedings under which he allegedly had been released, in 1993, even though the Swiss authorities had asked him, on several occasions, to provide evidence in this respect. Another element that weakened the complainant’s credibility was his behaviour which did not correspond to that which one could reasonably expect from an individual who was sought by the police in Istanbul, Siirt, Ankara or Izmir. The FOM found it surprising that the complainant went to Istanbul to live there secretly for seven years, and his explanations that he needed to save money there in order to flee were not convincing. The FOM also found other contradictions in the complainant’s description of the facts. Thus, at his second interview, he had contended having been arrested and tortured every two-three days after his release, following the above-mentioned judicial proceedings. At the same time, however, during his first interview, the complainant contended that he had been arrested, one first time following the proceedings, and a second time, around one month later. 4.3 According to the State party, the Federal Administrative Court did not simply confirm the FOM’s conclusions. It noted also that several independent sources had reported about the events that the complainant allegedly had witnessed. The Court did, inter alia, refer to a detailed report of Amnesty International (http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/pdf/EUR440841996ENGLISH/$File/EUR4408496.p df ; p.25) attributing explicitly the responsibility of the 1993 attack to the PKK, contradicting the complainant’s allegations. The Court emphasized that the complainant failed to adduce any proof with respect to his judicial proceedings in relation to his release. 4.4 The CAM also assessed the rest of the complainant’s allegations. On the complainant’s fear to serve in the army, the Court observed that the problems experienced 5