CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 Appendix Individual opinion of Committee member Mr. Alessio Bruni (dissenting) It is my opinion that the forced removal of the complainant would constitute a b reach by the State party of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, for the following reasons: (a) It appears from the information submitted to the Committee that the complainant belongs to a family well known in Turkey for its pro-Kurdish political views and activities considered illegal by the Government. The complainant’s sister was arrested for her political activities in favour of the illegal Communist Labo ur Party in 1995 and accused of the killing of a policeman in a shooting during her arrest. She was tortured and imprisoned for life. When she was released on parole for six months, in 2002, she escaped to Switzerland where she was granted asylum in 2003. Turkey requested her extradition, but Switzerland refused it on the principle of non-refoulement; (b) The fact that the complainant belongs to a family of persons wanted by the Turkish police authorities and that she is the sister of a person whose extradition was refused by the State party on the principle of non-refoulement is an element of personal, real and foreseeable risk for the complainant of being subjected to mistreatment, if she is returned to Turkey. She would be arrested and interrogated and most probably exposed to treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention to obtain information on her family members and their activities abroad. She had been threatened already when the police was looking for her sister in 1995 and in 2002; (c) The State party argues that the complainant’s parents living in Istanbul have not been persecuted. This can be easily explained by the fact that they live in Istanbul and, therefore, they have no useful first-hand information to give to police authorities with regard to other family members ’ activities abroad; (d) The complainant would attract the interest of the Turkish police authorities also because: (i) She is suspected of having used her extraordinary resemblance to her sister to help her in her evasion. It should be noted, in this connection, that because of her resemblance, she had been briefly arrested several times when she had visited her sister in prison. The reasons for these arrests would have been to prevent her from replacing her sister in prison and allowing her sister to escape. The State party argues that the suspicion by police authorities that the complainant could have used the resemblance to her sister to help her escape from prison should have led to a criminal charge against the complainant. This was not necessary while t he complainant was still under surveillance by the police, which was trying to intercept her contacts with her sister, but this could be the case if she is returned to Turkey; (ii) In Turkey, from 1997 to 2004, the complainant worked for the Mesopotamia Cultural Center (MCC), an institution allegedly belonging to the PKK and subjected to close monitoring by security authorities; (iii) Following her sister’s escape, in August 2002, the complainant was allegedly kept under surveillance by the police for four years; (iv) On 1 February 1998 the complainant was arrested, detained for seven days and tortured for her illegal activities and then released for lack of evidence. These 16