CAT/C/46/D/352/2008 April 2001, as supplied by the complainant, has thus not resulted in the launch of a search/arrest warrant against the complainant. This was also noted by the F.A.T. in its decision of 29 June 2007. The F.A.T., contrary to what is alleged by the complainant, did not reject his fourth request for a revision based only on its doubts about the authenticity of the record in question. 6.15 According to the State party, if the complainant were wanted by the authorities, he would have been able to present other documentary evidence, such as, for example, confirmations of his arrests, official arrest warrants, police investigation records, accusation acts, or correspondence with his lawyer(s). In addition, as far as the interrogation record provided by the complainant is concerned, the State party contends that the name of the Prosecutor who had signed it remains unknown to it. This reinforces the subsisting doubts as to the authenticity of the record in question. 6.16 The State party further notes that the complainant has provided the F.O.M. with the copies of two arrest warrants (so called “Örnek 29”), in substantiation of his claims. The authenticity of the first one, dated 4 August 2000 (copy provided), was examined scrupulously by the F.O.M. The State party notes that arrest warrants are issued by courts in Turkey. The document supplied by the complainant contains a header of a tribunal, and is apparently signed by a judge. However, the document is stamped with the stamp of the Prosecution Office. The State party finds it difficult to imagine that a judge would use a stamp of a prosecutor. It is also difficult to understand, according to the State party, how an individual with a warrant against him/her is in possession of the original of his arrest warrant. As noted by the Swiss Embassy, the complainant was never wanted by the police. The complainant presented the copy of the above mentioned arrest warrant only once he was provided with the copy of the Swiss Embassy’s report. Therefore, the State party finds it unnecessary to proceed with the complainant’s request to verify the authenticity of the arrest warrant in question with a Turkish lawyer. According to the State party, the second form “Örnek 29” presents the same characteristics as the first one, i.e. contains a stamp by a Prosecutor. 6.17 In relation to the hard copy of the newspaper “Dogus” of 2 October 2000, as provided by the complainant, the State party explains that the Swiss Embassy in Turkey has contacted an employee of the newspaper. It transpired, after verification in the archives, that the copy was false. The original issue of 2 October 2000 did not contain a search warrant for and a picture of the complainant. The content of the first page of the original newspaper differed completely from the one submitted by the complainant. In addition, the compulsory requisites about periodicals “Impressum”, contained on the fourth page, were incorrect in the copy provided by the complainant. Finally, the original newspaper has its title on the first page in red, but these letters appear in white in the copy provided by the complainant. Therefore, the State party believes that no arrest warrant concerning the complainant was published in the newspaper, what corroborates the findings, as already laid out by, of the Turkish lawyer contacted by the Swiss Embassy. 6.18 The State party adds that the complainant’s allegations on his persecution are contradicted by the circumstances surrounding the closure of his shop. In his testimony to the police as an asylum seeker, the complainant had claimed that his shop was closed by the police in September 2000. As revealed by the F.C.R., the Swiss Embassy in Turkey has reported in July 2003, that the complainant’s shop was in fact closed in July 2002 by his brother, and not by the police. The complainant has provided no observations thereon. 6.19 The State party recalls that its asylum authorities have qualified as non credible the allegations of the complainant that he has been persecuted. His and his wife’s medical troubles are not the consequence of past persecution, but had different cause. This is confirmed by the fact that, in particular, the complainant’s mental troubles (such as 8