CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 entry into Turkey that she has been in Switzerland with her sister, where she had sought asylum; (g) numerous international organizations as well as the recent case law of the Federal Administrative Tribunal confirm that the human rights situation in Turkey has remained largely unchanged, particularly for Kurds, and that arbitrary arrests, mistreatment and torture of persons accused of pro-Kurdish activities or their close relatives are still to be considered standard procedure; (h) she has suffered from mental illness for many years, has been treated by the TOHAV torture rehabilitation centre in Istanbul for four years and is under treatment with a psychiatrist who has confirmed that she would not be able to cope with another arrest by the Turkish authorities. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale of 16 February 2011, the State party submitted its observations. It provides a brief summary of the facts of the complainant’s case and of her allegations in the context of the asylum proceedings which reflects the information supplied by the complainant in paragraphs 2.1-2.8 above. The State party notes that the complainant claims before the Committee that she would be arrested and ill-treated upon return to Turkey, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. She further claims that she suffers from mental health problems and that, in case of return, she runs a serious risk of suicide. The State party submits that, with the exception of the allegation concerning her mental health problems, the complainant relies on the same facts and claims as have been submitted before national authorities, and provides no new information that would call into question the decision of the Federal Office for Migration of 19 March 2010 and the judgement of the Federal Administrative Tribunal of 5 August 2010. 4.2 The State party submits that, according to article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exist substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be subjected to torture. To determine the existence of such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The State party recalls 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 225 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 existence of such a risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion; the alleged facts need to demonstrate that such a risk is serious. The State party recalls that paragraph 8 of the Committee’s general comment requires, inter alia, that the following information be taken into account when assessing the risk of expelling someone: evidence of the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights; allegations of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past as well as the existence of evidence from independent sources in this regard; the complainant’s political activities in and outside his or her country of origin; existence of evidence as to the credibility of the complainant; and existence of relevant factual inconsistencies in the complainant’s claim. 4.3 In order to assess whether there are serious grounds to believe that a complainant would be at risk of torture in case of forcible removal, the Committee must take into account all pertinent considerations, in particular the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the receiving State. The purpose of the 5 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1)), annex IX. 7