CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 arguments put forward in her appeal against the decision of the Federal Office for Migration (see para. 2.11 above), and adds that it does not seem improbable at all that the prisons guards would have detained, searched and harassed her after each of her visits to her sister in prison, since such measures would make sense from the prison guards’ view only if carried out without exception. 5.6 The complainant submits that neither the Federal Office for Migration nor the Federal Administrative Tribunal provide any evidence as to the alleged improvements of the human rights situation in Turkey, nor do they comment in any way on the numerous reports stating the contrary. She further recalls that the views taken by the State party on this point contradict the Tribunal’s own case law, as outlined above, and refers to the reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United States Department of State supplied as evidence.13 She also refers to the concluding observations issued by the Committee in November 2010, where it again expressed serious concerns on the human rights situation in Turkey.14 5.7 The complainant contests the State party’s argument that she claimed that the police had continued to search for her at her parents’ home after she left Turkey in the summer of 2008 only before the Committee, since this fact was brought to the attention of the Federal Administrative Tribunal in her appeal. In response to the State party’s contention that, even though she might be questioned by the police upon return, there is no indication that this would lead to ill-treatment or torture, the complainant reiterates her arguments put forward in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 above. 5.8 The complainant submits that she did not mention her health problems upon arrival in Switzerland because she was hopeful that they would disappear. Moreover, her mental health problems are of a nature that makes it difficult for her to talk about them and she would not easily disclose them when asked in a general way, as was the case during the hearing with the Swiss authorities. As to the State party’s argument that the origin of her health problems is not proven, she refers to the medical report issued by her psychiatrist on 23 August 2010, which indicates that she had developed mental health problems around 2000, after she had been visiting her sister in prison for years and had been regularly detained and intimidated, and following her detention and severe ill-treatment in 1998. At that time she suffered from dissociative convulsions, muscle tension and loss of consciousness which required emergency hospitalizations. The report also refers to her treatment at the TOHAV centre from 2002 until 2006 and mentions that, as a result of the increased surveillance and persecution by the police after 2006, she almost completely withdrew to her home, which further increased her mental health problems and ultimately made her leave Turkey in 2008. In Switzerland she felt useless, helpless and depressed, and was plagued with memories of the humiliation of the police detentions and the torture she had suffered. She also felt unable to bear any further negative experiences , and feared that she would harm herself in such a case. Based on these observations by the psychiatrist, the complainant considers it established that her mental health problems are caused by her treatment by the Turkish authorities in the past. 5.9 The complainant submits that the mental health problems are one of several elements on which her claim under article 3 is based, and therefore the Committee’s decisions quoted by the State party, according to which a person’s state of health is 13 14 12 “T urkey”, in Amnesty International Report 2010: The State of the World’s Human Rights; Human Rights Watch, “ T urkey” (footnote 3 above); United States Department of State, “ 2010 human rights report: T urkey”. T he complainant appears to refer to the Committee’s concluding observations on T urkey (CAT /C/T UR/CO/3).