CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 particular for Kurdish activists and their relatives, she would be at high risk if returned to Turkey, and her forced return would also severely damage her very fragile mental health. 2.15 On 5 August 2010, the Federal Administrative Tribunal issued its judgement on the merits of the case, upholding the decision of the Federal Office for Migration. It confirmed the view of the Federal Office, finding credible the events of 1998 and some intimidation incidents the complainant had suffered afterwards. However, it found not credible the persecutions that had allegedly occurred after 2002 as it appeared very unlikely that the Turkish authorities would have continued to persecute the co mplainant for many years without finding out prior to 2008 that her sister had obtained asylum in Switzerland. The fact that no indictment had been issued against the complainant for allegedly helping her sister to escape demonstrated that the Turkish authorities considered her blameless with respect to this event. The Tribunal considered that the complainant had invented essential elements of her persecution in order to support her asylum request, and concluded that neither her allegations nor the documents available indicated that she would face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment upon her return to Turkey. Finally, it stated that the complainant did not suffer from any disease that could impede the execution of the removal order. 2.16 On 9 August 2010, the Federal Office for Migration requested the complainant to leave Switzerland by 6 September 2010. 2.17 The complainant states that following her departure from Turkey she suffered several breakdowns. In June 2010 she consulted a psychiatrist and followed the prescribed psychotherapy. After learning of the judgement of the Federal Administrative Tribunal, she suffered a mental health crisis and the psychiatrist adapted her therapy to crisis intervention. According to a medical report of 23 August 2010, the complainant suffers from depressive episodes with somatic syndromes, dissociative convulsions and a suspected (the diagnosis was still ongoing at the time of submission of the complaint) post -traumatic stress disorder. The report considered that the then condition of the complainant would not allow for her return to Turkey. Her fear that she would be arrested and mistreated again upon return led to dissociative convulsions. Her return to Turkey would lead to further deterioration of her state of health with a serious risk of suicide. On 26 August 2010, the medical report was submitted to the Basel cantonal office for migration in charge of the enforcement of the deportation order, together with a request to suspend her deportation for medical reasons. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that her deportation to Turkey would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention. She maintains that, upon return, she would be detained, interrogated, intimidated and mistreated by the police. She could also be subjected to the same system of constant surveillance, persecution, detentions and intimidation she had suffered in the past, which had led to severe mental health problems. 3.2 In support of her allegations, the complainant recalls that: (a) she had been arrested and severely mistreated for seven days in 1998, a fact not contested by the Swiss migration authorities; (b) she had been arrested repeatedly for short periods of time when visiting her sister in prison; (c) she has been under tight surveillance with regular intimidation and short-term detentions ever since her sister engaged in illegal pro-Kurdish activities; (d) she has worked for many years for the MCC, an organization considered by the Turkish authorities closely linked to the PKK; (e) her sister has been sentenced to lifelong imprisonment for illegal pro-Kurdish activities and for the alleged murder of a policeman, and her extradition from Switzerland had been refused based on the principle of nonrefoulement; (f) the Turkish authorities know or would know upon the complainant ’s re6