CAT/C/21/D/97/1997 page 6 activities. He also informed the authorities concerned that he did not leave Turkey immediately after the event that led to his flight from the country and that he had no documents on entry because he had destroyed them after his arrival in Sweden. Owing to these circumstances, the immigration authorities concluded that he had not made it credible that he was of interest to the Turkish authorities. 4.6 In a new submission the author claimed that he had been a member of the PKK engaged in political activities. This new claim, however, was not considered to be credible, nor was the explanation of why he had not revealed the information at an earlier stage of the proceedings. The authorities also questioned the authenticity of the document submitted by the author which he claimed showed that he had been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for political activities. 4.7 Furthermore, in his third new application to the Aliens Appeal Board the author claimed that his whole family was known to be opposed to the regime in Turkey and submitted a copy of a judgement pronounced on 31 August 1995 by a security court in Izmir by which one of his brothers was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for his connections with the PKK. He himself was mentioned in the judgement. 4.8 Information provided by the Swedish Embassy in Ankara, according to which tampering with the copy of the judgement cannot be ruled out, further undermines the author’s general credibility. In a copy names and words can be deleted and replaced without detection. The author could easily have obtained and submitted an original or a duly authenticated copy of the judgement. Moreover, the author is not mentioned among the suspects, the condemned or the acquitted in the judgement, which means that he was not even prosecuted. 4.9 The medical reports fail to give sufficient support to the claim that the author’s injuries were caused in the manner described by him. One of the doctors indicated in his written statement that the author was subjected to torture in 1987. However, the author himself did not assert this. No physical evidence has been found to confirm torture and it has not been possible with any certainty to connect any of the injuries to the alleged torture. It should also be noted that the author did not produce any medical evidence and did not undergo any medical examination until a late stage in the proceedings. 4.10 To sum up, the author has not substantiated his allegation that he would run a particular personal risk of being detained and tortured if he were to return to Turkey. If he wishes to avoid the disturbances that undoubtedly characterize the south-east region, he has the possibility of staying in another part of the country. 4.11 On the basis of the foregoing, the State party contends that the information which the author has provided does not demonstrate that the risk of being detained or tortured is a foreseeable and necessary consequence of his return to Turkey. An enforcement of the expulsion order to Turkey would therefore, in the present circumstances, not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, as a consequence of the fact that