CAT/C/54/D/544/2013 2.4 On 20 March 2003, the complainant filed an asylum application with the Swiss Embassy in Ankara. On 6 June 2003, the Federal Office for Refugees (now the Federal Office for Migration) refused the complainant permission to enter Switzerland and rejected his asylum application. In a decision dated 22 November 2004, the former Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission dismissed an appeal filed on 14 July 2003 against the decision of the Federal Office for Migration. 2.5 The complainant continued to be subjected to constant persecution, repeated arrests, threats and other pressure. He was last arrested on D ecember 2006. Also in December 2006, he received death threats from the Turkish Gendarmerie intelligence and counter-terrorism service which drove him to leave his country to seek refuge in Switzerland. His mental health having been affected by years of co nstant persecution, the complainant could no longer bear the harassment, arrests and death threats, which is why he decided to leave Turkey on 25 April 2007. 2.6 After entering Switzerland illegally on 3 May 2007, the complainant filed a new asylum application the same day. In a decision dated 25 November 2010, the Federal Office for Migration rejected his application. 8 The Office ruled that the complainant was not able to demonstrate that, at the time of his departure from Turkey in 2007, he was considered as dangerous. The Office decided that his activities in the DEHAP (subsequently renamed the DTP) were simply those of any sympathizer with the Kurdish cause in general. He was last detained, briefly, in December 2006. The intimidation, threats and brief periods of detention which he recounts reflect the treatment meted out to the Kurdish population in general. According to the Office, there was no one specific event that had persuaded the complainant to decide to leave Turkey. Furthermore, according to inquiries made by the Swiss Embassy in Ankara, the complainant did not appear in police records in Turkey, and was not subject to any official investigation or passport ban. In addition, the complainant had apparently stated that he had had no particular problem with the police since filing his first asylum application, while on another occasion affirming that he had been repeatedly detained by the police. His arrest in 1981, his imprisonment from then until 1990, the fact that he was required to sign a register until 1999, and the threats he allegedly faced at the time of his first asylum application in 2003 date back too far to justify his flight from the country in April 2007. The Office also considered that the complainant could have escaped the police harassment by going to live in another part of the country, such as Izmir or Ankara, where many Kurds live without facing any particular problems. 2.7 On 7 February 2011, the complainant filed an appeal against the decision of the Federal Office for Migration. In a judgement dated 25 March 2013, the Federal Administrative Court definitively rejected the complainant ’s appeal. The Court upheld the conclusions reached by the Office, essentially ruling that there was no temporal causal link between the reasons cited in support of the complainant’s asylum application (his arrest in 1981, imprisonment until 1990, the persecution suffered during his military service, the obligation to sign a register every week until 1998 or 1999, the police harassment, and the second three-month period of detention) and his departure in April 2007. In addition, according to the Court, the authorities ’ action against the complainant was limited to questioning and, occasionally, short periods of detention, which tends to suggest that he did not, in their eyes, constitute any particular danger. Furthermore, the complainant had, and still has, the option of going to live in another part of the country, away from his native village. The Court reiterated that, according to inquiries carried o ut by the Swiss Embassy in Ankara in __________________ 8 4/12 In a decision issued on 4 January 2011, the Federal Office for Migration repealed and reissued its decision of 25 November 2010, because of an error in the list of recipients. However, the decision was unchanged. GE. 15-11119