CAT/C/46/D/352/2008 are under pressure to render quick decisions to the vast number of cases attributed to each of them. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 By Note Verbale of 20 March 2009, the State party presented further observations. Preliminary, it recalls its previous observations challenging the admissibility of the communication, and adds that it has studied the complainant’s comments of 5 January 2009. It notes that the complainants recognize that the State party has described the judicial situation correctly. Thus, the judge examining the case could not reject it without the consent of a second judge. Therefore, one could not affirm, as advanced by the complainant, that the decision of 17 April 2008 has pre-judged the outcome of the eventual examination of the merits of the case. As far as the amount of advance payment is concerned – 2400 CHF – the State party contends that the amount in question was determined in accordance with the pertinent rates adopted on 14 September 2007 by the judges of the Federal Administrative Tribunal (a list of the rates in question is provided). 6.2 According to the State party, in any event, the Committee may examine a communication presented by an individual under the jurisdiction of a State party recognizing the Committee’s competence under article 22 of the Convention. In the present case, the complainants contend that they are still in Switzerland. The decisions of the F.A.T. (for example the one of 29 June 2007) make it clear, however, that the residence of the complainants is unknown as of 6 July 2005. The F.A.T. has thus concluded that the presence of the complainants in Switzerland could not be established and there were no proof thereon. The complainants, who do not risk a forced removal from Switzerland while their case is considered by the Committee, do not adduce any element to refute the above conclusions. In light of the fact that the last medical report submitted to the Committee is dated 16 January 2006, the State party cannot but align itself to the F.A.T.’s conclusions. Therefore, the State party considers that the present communication is inadmissible on this second ground two. 6.3 On the merits, the State party notes that before the Committee (and as they had already done before the Swiss asylum authorities), the complainants claim that their forcible return to Turkey would amount to a breach, by the State party, of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. The complainants consider that the Swiss asylum authorities have wrongly qualified as false or irrelevant a number of evidentiary elements and have concluded that they lacked credibility. The complainant has claimed that on 15 July 2000, he had been arrested and ill-treated by officials of the security forces, as he was suspected of having cooperated with the P.K.K; he was helped by a friend and lived with his wife in Istanbul for two years. In August 2002, he received a copy of a newspaper “Dogus”, containing an arrest warrant for him on the cover page. The complainant, his wife, and their sons escaped from Turkey and arrived in Switzerland on 25 August 2002. 6.4 According to the State party, in his communication to the Committee, the complainant repeats the same claims he formulated in his asylum claim, without adducing new elements. According to the State party, thus there is no reason to question the grounds for decision of the national authorities in this case but rather the complaint challenges the evaluation of facts and evidence as made by the authorities. 6.5 The State party recalls the numerous proceedings undertaken by the complainants in Switzerland. Thus, the complainant applied for asylum on 3 September 2003. The Federal Office of Refugees (F.O.R.) rejected his application on 29 September 2003. The F.O.R. took into consideration the verifications carried out by the Swiss Embassy in Turkey; it qualified as non credible the complainant’s allegations and concluded that the complainant has used false evidence – including a faked copy of a newspaper. The complainant filed an 5