CAT/C/44/D/356/2008 notes that the Committee had also concluded, in two cases against Switzerland, that the complainants’ removal to Turkey would not expose the latter to any real risk of torture 6 . 4.10 The State party explains that both the CAM and the FOM had considered that the complainant’s allegations in respect to the attack of the Dartepe Köyü village, and the harassments, ill-treatments, and alleged arrests and detentions lacked credibility. In addition, the complainant was never prosecuted or encountered any problems with the authorities. 4.11 The State party further notes the complainant’s contention that his marks of torture confirm the veracity of his allegations. According to the State party, however, these scars do not by themselves prove that he had been subjected to torture. The CAM had qualified as not credible the complainant’s allegations. Such marks could have had other origins, for example a car accident or a work accident. The State party notes also that the complainant had not provided any medical evidence in relation to the potential origins of the abuses to which he was allegedly subjected. 4.12 According to the State party, in his communication, the complainant tries to establish that the independent sources used by the CAM in assessing the circumstances of the 1993 attack were wrong. However, the complainant had not provided until now the HADEP report which, according to him, confirms his version of the attack. In addition, no independent sources confirming the complainant’s version exist. The newly presented allegation that two Turkish lawyers had recently learned that no information in respect to the Daltepe Köyü attack existed in the archives of the two human rights organisations is not documented in any way. 4.13 The 1993 report of the Turkish human rights foundation indicated that during the attack in question, 25 houses belonging to the village guards had been destroyed and nine guards were killed. Thus, it cannot be deduced that the army was responsible for the attack. The State party explains that it cannot understand how secret entities in Turkey and/or their activities could have influenced the conclusions made by experienced, independent, and impartial human rights organisations. In addition, according to the State party, the complainant has failed to explain how such entities were implicated in the attack of the Daltepe Köyü village and in his alleged persecution. 4.14 The complainant had affirmed in his appeal to the CAM that his uncle was arrested by the police when he sought information in support of the complainant’s asylum proceedings. According to the complainant, his uncle had been ill-treated during his detention and he died as a result of his injuries. At the same time, in the present communication, the complainant has affirmed that his uncle had died after a strange incident with two villagers in July 2003. This new version is an apparent contradiction with the one presented to the CAM. 4.15 The State party fully endorses the conclusions of the FOM and the CAM on the lack of credibility of the complainant’s allegations. According to the State party, the complainant’s declaration do not indicate existence of serious grounds to believe, in 6 The State party notes that in the communication of H.D. vs. Switzerland, the Committee noted, inter alia, that the complainant had never been the object of prosecution on specific facts or that the proceedings in question were not directed personally against him but rather against his relatives, who were members of the PKK. The Committee further noted that nothing indicated that the complainant had collaborated with PKK members after his departure from Turkey, or that he or his relatives had been intimidated by the authorities (communication No. 112/1998, § 6.5). In another case, K.M. vs. Switzerland, the Committee has considered that nothing indicated that the complainant had collaborated with the PKK after his departure from Turkey (communication No. 107/1998, § 6.6). 7