CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 expressly accepted the described events as proven. She further clarifies that her fear in case of return is twofold: first, it must be expected that she would be detained by the police immediately upon her entry into Turkey and would be interrogated, intimida ted and mistreated; second, it must be expected that she would be put under the same system of constant surveillance, persecution, detentions and intimidation she had suffered before escaping from Turkey and which had led to her severe mental health pro blems. As to the State party���s reference to the criteria set out in the Committee’s general co mment No. 1, she notes that the criterion in paragraph 8 (c) refers not only to whether there exists independent proof of torture – as outlined by the State party – but also to whether the torture had any after-effects. This clarification is important as she suffered such after-effects. 5.2 With respect to the State party’s observations on the human rights situation in Turkey and the reference to the Committee’s case law on returns to Turkey (see paras. 4.3– 4.4 above), the complainant reiterates the individual elements contributing to the real risk as outlined in her complaint. In addition, she recalls again the case law of the Federal Administrative Tribunal, which was confirmed in a judgment of 25 October 2010 (E6587/2007), that persecution of relatives of politically active persons (hereinafter “family persecution”) continued to be applied by the Turkish authorities and that such repression could be the basis for serious risk in the sense of article 3 of the Swiss Asylum Act. The Tribunal further stated that the probability of becoming exposed to such family persecution was particularly high in cases where the politically active family members were wanted by the police and the authorities had cause to believe that the relative in question had close contact with the wanted family member. The Tribunal, quoting numerous reports by international organizations, confirmed that the human rights situation in Turkey had essentially remained unchanged since 2005. Based on the above, the complainant claims that in her case the Tribunal has not complied with its own case law, according to which she runs a risk of being persecuted if returned to Turkey. 5.3 With regard to the State party’s argument about the lack of a sufficient causal link between her arrest in 1998 and her escape from Turkey in 2008, the complainant recalls that her asylum request was not based only on the events of 1998, but also on the continued persecution and intimidation she suffered until she left Turkey in 2008, as well as on the risk of family persecution she runs because of her close relationship with her sister. Therefore, the events in 1998 mark one important element among others in establishing the risk of torture in case of return to Turkey and must be seen in the context of ongoing persecution she suffered until the recent past and the significant risk of family persecution she is running. Accordingly, the State party’s reference to the case of M.F. v. Sweden does not seem warranted, as in that case the Committee had no information, other than the illtreatment suffered by the complainant six years earlier, on why the co mplainant should have been of interest to the authorities . 5.4 The complainant notes that the State party in principle admits the key elements on which the complaint is based, that is, the severe mistreatment in 1998, her subsequent harassment by the Turkish authorities (although it contests the intensity and duration of such harassment) and the political activities of her sister leading to significant risk of family persecution. She contests the State party’s argument about contradictions regarding the periods of time during which she had been harassed by the Turkish authorities, claiming that no such discrepancies exist, as she has already explained in detail in her appeal against the negative decision of the Federal Office for Migration. 5.5 In response to the State party’s observations that her claims of repeated detention and harassment seem unlikely (para. 4.8 above), that it would appear improbable that the Turkish authorities would persecute her for years and then be informed in 2008 by her own family about the fact that her sister had actually left Turkey (para. 4.9), and that she was not indicted for having helped her sister flee Turkey (para. 4.10), the complainant reiterates the 11