CAT/C/46/D/352/2008 6.10 The State party further examines the complainants’ allegations in lights of article 3 of the Convention. It recalls that States parties to the Convention have the obligation not to expel an individual, under their jurisdiction, if there are grounds to believe that he or she would face a serious risk of torture. If a complainant is not under the jurisdiction of a State party, he or she cannot be expelled by this State, and thus article 3 of the Convention does not apply. In the present case, the continuous presence of the complainants in Switzerland could not be established. Thus, according to the State party, article 3 of the Convention does not apply to the complainants, and no violation of this provision could take place in this case. 6.11 Having recalled the Committee's jurisprudence and its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3, the State party endorses the grounds cited by the F.O.R. and the Federal Administrative Tribunal substantiating their decisions to reject the complainants’ application for asylum. It recalls the Committee's jurisprudence whereby the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not constitute sufficient reason for concluding that a particular individual is likely to be subjected to torture on return to his or her country, and that additional grounds must therefore exist before the likelihood of torture can be deemed to be, for the purposes of article 3, paragraph 1, "foreseeable, real and personal". 6.12 The State party recalls that the Committee has examined a number of communications on behalf of complainants claiming that they would be at risk of torture in Turkey. It notes that the Committee has concluded in the past that the human rights situation there was of concern, in particular in relation to P.K.K. militants, who could suffer torture by officials of the security services3. However, when concluding that a violation of article 3 of the Convention would occur in case of forcible return, the Committee has established that the complainants were engaged politically in favor of the P.K.K., that they had been detained and tortured prior to their departure from Turkey, and that their allegations of torture were substantiated by independent sources, such as medical certificates. In two previous communications against Switzerland, however, the Committee concluded that the complainants’ forcible return to Turkey would not breach article 3 of the Convention. 6.13 The State party notes that in the first case, H.D. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 112/1998, Views adopted on 30 April 1999, the Committee noted, inter alia, that the complainant was never subjected to prosecution for precise facts, and that the prosecutions invoked in the communication concerned his relatives, who belonged to the P.K.K., not himself. The Committee also noted that nothing indicated that the complainant had cooperated with the P.K.K. after his departure from Turkey, or that his relatives were intimidated by the Turkish authorities. In Communication No. 107/1998, K.M. v. Switzerland, the Committee took into consideration the fact that nothing showed that the complainant had cooperated with the P.K.K. after his departure form Turkey. 6.14 The State party recalls that in the present case, its competent authorities have concluded, after a thorough analysis of all pertinent elements, that the complainant’s allegations to the effect that he had been arrested, ill-treated and persecuted by the Turkish authorities because of his suspected links with the P.K.K, were not plausible. The State party recalls, first, that the Swiss Embassy in Turkey has conducted an inquiry and that thus a Turkish lawyer confirmed after verifications that in 2003, no political record existed with the Turkish police against the complainant, he was not under an arrest warrant by the police, and has no interdiction to have a passport issued. The interrogation recorded on 18 3 The State party refers, inter alia, to Communication No.97/1997, Orhan Ayas v. Sweden, paragraph 6.4, Views adopted on 12 November 1998. 7