CAT/C/21/D/97/1997 page 7 the author’s claims lack the substantiation that is necessary in order to render the communication compatible with article 22 of the Convention, the present communication should be considered inadmissible. Counsel’s comments 5.1 In his comments on the State party’s submission, counsel refers to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies and states that there are no new circumstances that could justify filing a new application in accordance with the Aliens Act. All remedies, therefore, have been exhausted. 5.2 Counsel also refers to the statement that the author, if deported, would not be returned to south-east Turkey. In this regard it should be emphasized that persons suspected of affiliation to the PKK have no alternative but to flee abroad; the author faces a substantial risk of being subjected to torture anywhere in the country, regardless of which city he might be returned to. Moreover, any involvement with the PKK is considered as a very serious crime. 5.3 With respect to the changes made by the author when telling his story to the immigration authorities, counsel reiterates that the author did conceal facts during the initial interview. However, he provided a rational explanation as to why he did so. In addition, he gave an account of the main elements of his story and was able to provide evidence that the majority of his amendments were true. In view of the medical evidence substantiating that he has been tortured, those changes should not have a decisive effect on the author’s general credibility. 5.4 The State party refers to a report by the Swedish Embassy in Ankara concerning the judgement pronounced by the Security Court in 1995 and concludes that tampering with the document cannot be excluded. The State party concludes this to mean that the document may have been altered; however, the opposite conclusion could equally be valid. To support its conclusion of possible tampering the Embassy states, inter alia, that the middle name of the author (i.e. Yusef) was not mentioned. It should be noted, however, that “Yusef” is the name of the author’s father, as indicated in his identity document, and has incorrectly been attributed to the author by the Swedish authorities. The author does not have a middle name. It is also argued that the author’s name is only mentioned once in the verdict and that he was not one of the prosecuted. It should be recalled, however, that this is a summary verdict concerning several defendants and that the author had already fled the country when it was issued. The verdict did not involve any persons who had not already been arrested. The action attributed to the author in the court decision falls under the anti-terrorist legislation and confirms, therefore, that the Turkish authorities would have an interest in him. 5.5 The State party stresses that the author did not request asylum immediately after his arrival. However, it has not given any explanation as to why this circumstance should affect the credibility of the author. 5.6 With respect to the assertion in one of the medical reports that the author had been tortured in 1987, counsel provides a copy of a written statement made by the psychiatrist on 13 May 1998 acknowledging that this was his mistake. Counsel also contends that the State party never sought an