CAT/C/46/D/352/2008 appeal against this decision on 2 January 2004 with the Federal Commission of Refugees (F.C.R.). On 28 June 2005, the F.C.R. confirmed the F.O.R.’s initial conclusions. 6.6 On 10 June 2005, the complainant submitted a request for re-consideration of his case with the F.O.R., which was qualified as a request for a revision and was transmitted to the F.C.R. As the complainant did not pay in advance the corresponding fees, the F.C.R. rejected his request without examination. 6.7 On 6 February 2006, the complainant submitted a second request for revision, but subsequently he withdrew it2. Also in February 2006, the complainant introduced a third request for revision, rejected by the F.C.R. on 28 March 2006. The F.C.R. considered on this occasion that the medical certificates provided in support of his allegations of past acts of torture having been committed against the complainant were of no relevance and did not allow for the past conclusions of the F.C.R as to the complainant’s credibility to be refuted. Contrary to what is submitted by the complainant, on this occasion the F.C.R. did not limit itself to rejecting the request for revision. According to the State party, the F.C.R. took note of the new medical certificates indicating that the complainant’s wife had suffered psychical problems after the rejection of the complainant’s asylum claim, and it decided to transmit the case to the F.O.M., for further verification. On 3 May 2006, the F.O.M. rejected the request for re-examination of the complainants’ case, considering that the problems in question were not the consequence of persecution by the Turkish authorities, and that an adequate medical treatment was available in Turkey. The State party notes that no appeal was filed against this decision. 6.8 On 11 December 2006, the complainant submitted a fourth request for reexamination of his case. He adduced an interrogation record dated 18 April 2001, according to which, first, an accused, Mr. A.A. confessed having collaborated with the P.K.K. by distributing newspapers, magazines, etc, and that he had transmitted such documents inter alia to the complainant, and, second, that the inquiry authorities have asked Mr. A.A. to provide them with the address of the complainant. The Federal Administrative Tribunal – which replaced the F.C.R. in January 2007 – rejected this request on 29 June 2007 (copy provided). The F.A.T. declared that this interrogation record was of no relevance, especially given that its content was in contradiction with the conclusions of both the F.O.M. and the F.C.R on the lack of credibility of the complainant in light of the results of the inquiries carried out by the Swiss Embassy in Turkey. The State party notes in this respect, that on 21 July 2003, the Swiss Embassy confirmed that no record on the political activities of the complainant existed with the police, that he was not under an arrest warrant by the police or the gendarmerie, and that he was not under an interdiction to be issued with a passport. In addition, the F.A.T. expressed serious doubts as to the authenticity of the interrogation record in question. 6.9 The State party explains further that the complainants have submitted a fifth request for a revision, dated 8 April 2008. The complainants apparently tried to demonstrate the authenticity of the investigation record of 2001, without, according to the State party, commenting on its relevance in light of the conclusions of the Swiss Embassy in Turkey. On 17 April 2008, the F.A.T. rejected this request, as frivolous, and, in fine, did not examine it on the merits, due to the non-payment of the correspondent procedure fees. The State party concludes that the complainant’s allegations have been examined thoroughly by the Federal Office of Migrations, and, on numerous occasions, by the F.C.R. and the F.A.T. 2 The State party supplies the Committee with the copy of two decisions of the F.C.R. on the matter, dated 10 February 2006 and 16 February 2006, respectively. 6