CAT/C/54/D/544/2013 and has not been beaten or ill-treated since completing his prison sentence. There is therefore nothing to suggest that he has been tortured by the Turkish authorities in the recent past. Furthermore, the State party recalls that the Federal Administrative Court concluded that there was no temporal causal link between the grounds cited by the complainant in support of his asylum application — his arrest in 1981, imprisonment until 1990, persecution during military service and police harassment — and his departure from Turkey in April 2007. 4.4 As far as his political activities in the PKK and political parties such as the DEP, HADEP and DEHAP, the contention that he played a significant role in the establishment of Kurdish political parties and the argument that several members of his family are politically active are concerned, the State party notes that these allegations differ from the complainant’s previous statements, in which he explained that he was not a member of DEHAP but simply worked for the party, and that he held only a supporter’s card and not a membership card. 4.5 With regard to the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, the State party recalls that the Federal Administrative Court concluded that the complainant was not known to have been involved in any special political activity since his arrival in Switzerland, so that it was deemed unlikely that he would attract undue attention from the Turkish authorities if returned. The State party adds that the attestations provided are vague, 16 and show only that he took part in organized events. Furthermore, these attestations were drawn up only a month after the complainant ’s appeal had been dismissed by the Court. 4.6 The State party further submits that there is no reason to fear in the present case that the complainant would suffer persecution “by association” ( sippenhaft) because he belongs to a family known for its support for the PKK, and is from the same v illage as the Kurdish leader, Abdullah Öcalan. Following a detailed analysis of the facts, the Federal Administrative Court concluded that there was no evidence that, because of his family background, the complainant had been, or might be, subjected to tar geted persecution or any more serious than suffered by the Kurdish people as a whole. 4.7 The State party adds that the Court ruled that the brevity of the complainant ’s periods in detention was indicative of the fact that he was not considered to constitu te any particular threat in the eyes of the authorities. Furthermore, the alleged persecution has not extended beyond the complainant’s home village, meaning that he would be at liberty to move to another part of the country. 4.8 On the basis of inquiries conducted by the Swiss Embassy in Ankara, the State party reiterates that the complainant is not wanted by the police. The complainant has failed to submit any document that might serve to substantiate the claim that he was the subject of particular attention from the authorities. 4.9 Lastly, with regard to the complainant’s state of health, the State party notes that the root cause of the psychological problems described is not clearly established. In any case, the mere fact that he is afflicted by these disorders is not in itself sufficient grounds to prevent the State party from going ahead with his deportation. 17 Furthermore, it is possible for the complainant to consult a doctor in his country of origin, since, in its decision concerning the complainant, the Federal Administrative Court ruled that there are adequate and accessible medical facilities in Turkey. 18 __________________ 16 17 18 GE. 15-11119 Statements issued by the Mesopotamian Cultural Association and the Federation of Kurdish Associations in Switzerland, dated 12 and 14 April 2013 respectively. The State party refers, inter alia, to communication No. 228/2003, T.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 18 November 2003, and communication No. 220/2002, R.D. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2005. Judgement of 25 March 2013, para. 8.3.2. 7/12