CAT/C/44/D/356/2008 accordance with article 3 of the Convention, that the complainant would be tortured in case of his forcible removal. The complainant’s inconsistent statements, as mentioned above, relate to essential points of the present communication. 4.16 The State party therefore concludes that nothing indicates that serious grounds exist to fear that the complainant personally would be exposed to torture in Turkey. His allegations do not establish that his return would expose him to a foreseeable, real, and personal risk of being tortured, and his forcible removal would not be in breach of the State party’s obligations under the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 The complainant submitted his comments on 20 May 2009. He contends, first, that his imprisonment was “extra-legal”. The Turkish authorities had not “examined his rights” and there had been no legal proceedings whatsoever, and thus, no judicial documents exist. 5.2 According to the complainant, the fact that he had spent seven years in Istanbul prior to his departure, does not establish anything. Many refugees remain in Turkey before leaving the country and it is difficult to leave his/her family and collect the money necessary to flee. The complainant alleges that persons in his circumstances live underground for years prior to their departure, and the fact that he had no problems with the authorities while hiding in Istanbul does not indicate anything. In addition, his family only officially registered itself in Istanbul subsequent to his departure. 5.3 The complainant adds that the contradictions in his initial and second interviews in Switzerland were due to the fact that the record of his first and very short interview was not sufficiently precise. Even if he had explained that he had been arrested again and tortured one month after his initial arrest, this does not mean that he had not been arrested in the meantime too. In addition, he was never asked in his first interview for the exact number of his arrests. 5.4 As far as his military service is concerned, the complainant contends that his mother had been contacted by the authorities in this regard but she had refused to receive the convocation issued to him 7 . 5.5 According to the complainant, contrary to the State party’s affirmations, the death of his father, four years after the attack on the Daltepe Köyü village, constitutes an indication that a risk, for the complainant, still exists despite the time elapsed. 5.6 As to his torture marks, the complainant admits that such marks could have had a different origin, but, given the time elapsed, no plausible evidence could be provided. However, taking into account his affirmations, it could be concluded that his marks are the consequence of the torture suffered 8 . 5.7 The complainant adds that the rejection of his asylum application in Switzerland has caused him a lot of stress, to the point that he had to seek psychiatric assistance. For more than half a year, since October 2008, the complainant has been under treatment with a psychiatrist 9 . 7 The complainant explains that it is probable that a record on this matter was placed in his family register, and that, at present, he is trying to obtain a copy of the register in question. 8 The complainant adds that several weeks ago, he had sought to pass a medical examination in the « Ambulatorium für Folter-und Kriegsopfer » at Zurich University Hospital, but he was not given an appointment. 9 The complainant adds that a report of the medical doctor in question would be presented to the Committee. 8