CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 assessment is however to determine whether the complainant would face a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country of return. The existence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not in itself a sufficient ground for believing that an individual would be subjected to torture upon his or her return to his or her country of origin, and additional grounds must exist for the risk of torture to qualify, within the meaning of article 3, as foreseeable, real and personal.6 Conversely, as the Committee has reiterated in its decisions, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7 4.4 The State party submits that the Committee has already had the opportunity to examine communications in which complainants of Kurdish origin claimed that they would be exposed to torture should they be returned to Turkey. On that occasion, the Committee noted that the situation of human rights in Turkey was of concern, particularly for PKK militants. However, the Committee has concluded that a particular complainant would face a real and personal risk of torture upon return to Turkey only where additional individual elements could have been established, in particular, the importance of political activities in favor of the PKK, the possible politically motivated criminal charges against a complainant, and the question whether a complainant had been subjected to torture in the past .8 With regard to political activities or former acts of persecution, the Committee gave considerable weight to whether they occurred in the recent past or not.9 4.5 The State party claims that the complainant has not demonstrated that she would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Turkey. The torture or illtreatment allegedly suffered by her in the past is one of the elements to be taken into account when assessing the risk of torture or ill-treatment in case of return. The complainant claims that she was ill-treated by Turkish authorities during her one-week detention in February 1998. While the 1998 arrest of the complainant was not contested by the Swiss authorities, they noted that more than 10 years had passed since the event. Thus, after examining the current situation of the complainant, the Swiss authorities have found that she has not established a causal link between the events of 1998 and her alleged escape from the country in 2008, and have concluded that there is no current risk of persecution in case of return to Istanbul. In addition, the State party recalls the practice of the Committee that possible ill-treatment in the past does not prove the current risk of torture for a complainant if returned, in particular when such acts have not occurred in the recent past.10 4.6 The State party submits that the complainant claimed that she would be persecuted because of her sister’s past political activities and her sister’s escape to Switzerland. She also declared that she had been suspected of supporting the PKK because of her work at the MCC in Istanbul, which also led to persecution. The competent Swiss authorities did not contest the complainant’s detention in 1998. Similarly, they found credible her allegations of persecution because of her sister’s activities . 4.7 The Federal Office for Migration noted that the complainant contradicted herself regarding the period of time during which she had been harassed by the Turkish authorities. 6 7 8 9 10 8 Emphasis as appears in the original submission. Reference is made to communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.2. Reference is made to communications No. 373/2009, Aytulun and Güclü v. Sweden, decision adopted on 19 November 2010, paras. 7.6-7.7; No. 281/2005, Pelit v. Azerbaijan, decision adopted on 1 May 2007, paras. 2.3, 7.3 and 11; No. 135/1999, S.G. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 6.5; No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, decision adopted on 10 September 2002, para. 13.6. Reference is made to N.S. v. Switzerland, para. 7.4; and M.A.K v. Germany, para. 13.7. Reference is made to general comment No. 1, para. 8 (c) [sic], and communication No. 326/2007, M.F. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2008, para. 7.6.