CAT/C/54/D/544/2013 3.4 The complainant adds that he is still wanted by the police, and that members of his family are subjected to searches and have been harried by the police on his account. 13 There are therefore grounds to believe that he would be at risk of being tortured if returned to Turkey. This possibility is supported by statements made by the mayor of Ömerli village, who reports that he has been questioned a number of times about the complainant. 14 State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 28 October 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the merits, in which it noted that the complainant has merely reiterated to the Committee the reasons he invoked before the national authorities and has not provided any new evidence that might justify a review of the decisions taken by the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. The State party recalls the conclusions reached by the Federal Office for Migration, which, in its decision of 3 June 2003, found that the pressure and harassment suffered by the complainant took place solely at a local level, and did not reach such a scale as to constitute treatment prohibited under the Convention. The State party recognizes that the complainant was exposed to “certain petty harassment”, which was rooted, for the most part, in the fact that the local authorities disapproved of his political activities and those of his family. It adds that the complainant has not put forward any new conclusive evidence, other than the fact of his conviction in the 1980s for assisting the PKK, while the information gathered by the Swiss Embassy in Ankara has confirmed that he is not wanted by the police, does not have a police record and is not subject to a passport ban. 4.2 The State party notes that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Recalling the criteria established by the Committee in its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, which require the complainant to prove that he or she runs a personal, present and substantial danger of torture if deported to his or her country of origin, the State party submits that the Committee has already had occasion to examine communications in which complainants of Kurdish origin claimed that they would be at risk of being subjected to torture should they be returned to Turkey. On those occasions, the Committee had noted that the human rights situation in Turkey was a matter of concern, particularly for PKK militants. It concluded, however, that particular complainants would face a real and personal risk of torture upon return to Turkey only where additional individual elements could be established, such as the extent of their political activities on behalf of the PKK, the existence of any criminal charges against them and whether they had been subjected to torture in the past. 15 4.3 The State party contends that in the case under consideration the complainant has not submitted any individual elements showing that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Turkey. The complainant was detained in the 1980s and on several occasions in the 1990s. However, he has not been arrested since, __________________ 13 14 15 6/12 A letter from his family is attached in this regard. A letter from his lawyer in Turkey, Ahmet Bindal, is also annexed. In this letter the lawyer affirms that the family is regularly questioned about the complainant, but that it has not been possible to obtain any documentary evidence, as the files are secret. According to the same letter, the complainant’s family have apparently been informed that he is wanted by the State security forces in connection with the legal proceedings undertaken against the KCK (a party affiliated to the PKK). This information could be checked directly with the town hall of Ömerli village, where the family lives. The mayor’s letter is attached to a file. See, inter alia, communications No. 431/2010, Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 May 2013, and No. 373/2009, Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden, decision adopted on 19 November 2010. GE. 15-11119