CAT/C/30/D/201/2002 page 5 with Kurds substantially less at risk of involvement in military conflict, with growing confidence in return and reconstruction. Pressures on the pro-Kurdish party HADEP had diminished, and political dialogue was opening. On 4 May 2001, the Minister again refers to freedoms of expression, association and assembly, while noting that Kurds are not persecuted simply by virtue of their ethnicity. From the most recent report of 29 January 2002, it can be inferred that there have been no major changes since. 4.6 As to the compatibility of the complainant’s projected return with article 3, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that the complainant must show a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture beyond a mere possibility, and that specific grounds beyond the existence of a consistent pattern of gross violations must exist. Applying these principles to the complainant’s case, the State party argues, in the light of the Committee’s recent jurisprudence6 and the above-mentioned country reports, that the general situation in Turkey is not such as to automatically place any Kurd at risk. 4.7 Concerning the complainant’s family ties and alleged political activities, the State party argues that no plausible case has been made that the complainant faces torture in Turkey on these grounds. In the most recent country report of 29 January 2002, the Minister points out that there are countless Turkish citizens with PKK family members without this relationship causing any significant problems. While relatives of prominent PKK members may be subject to extra scrutiny from the authorities and probably live under a certain amount of pressure, they cannot be said to have been persecuted on account of their family ties with PKK leaders. 4.8 The State party adds that the complainant divorced his wife on 3 January 2002, so that those family ties no longer exist. 4.9 Concerning the complainant’s allegation that he was arrested three times on account of HADEP membership, the State party points out that he was unconditionally released and free to continue his activities on each occasion, suggesting that the authorities do not have serious objections to the complainant. Indeed, the complainant himself states that he did not flee for these reasons, and thus no plausible case can be made for any risk of torture on this basis. 4.10 Moreover, in terms of the complainant’s fear of adverse consequences based on his refusal to supply the authorities with information, the State party points out that after he refused such requests five times between 1993 and 1998, at no point did he suffer adversely. After he left his village, his brothers were interrogated about his whereabouts, but were released unconditionally thereafter. No evidence has been presented of any problems to other relatives after his departure. 4.11 The State party concludes that no plausible, much less substantial, case has been made for the contention that the complainant would personally and presently be subjected to treatment incompatible with article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, his removal should be permitted to proceed. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions 5.1 By letter of 14 October 2002, the complainant responded, arguing that the State party did not contest the complainant’s credibility. As to his divorce, he states that it is not just his wife,