CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 The Federal Office has considered, inter alia, that it was unlikely that the complainant was arrested “each time” she visited her sister in prison because of their physical resemblance. In the circumstances, the Turkish authorities would have had an interest in taking measures to avoid such confusion; more so that during certain periods the complainant had visited her sister in prison daily. 4.8 Other allegations of the complainant were also deemed exaggerated and less realistic. She has also claimed that, over a period of seven years, she had been arrested about once a week. In addition, she had been harassed, threatened and subject to surveillance for years. She claimed that she had been followed almost every day and that the harassment had not stopped even after the police had learned that her sister was abroad. The Swiss authorities considered that it seemed illogical that the police would intimidate the complainant for the same reason for many years, with the frequency and persistence she had alleged. 4.9 The State party sees no reason to depart from the Federal Administrative Tribunal finding that it seems unrealistic that the Turkish authorities have invested so much in the surveillance and monitoring of the complainant, especially noting that her sister had already left Turkey in 2002. During the hearing of 22 June 2009, the complainant alleged that in March 2008 she and her family had informed the police that her sister had fled the country. It seems likely that, by claiming uninterrupted surveillance, the complainant is trying to create a link between the events of 1998 and her departure for Switzerland in 2008. 4.10 With regard to the complainant’s allegation that she was suspected of having helped her sister to escape, the Swiss migration authorities have rightly pointed out that the complainant cites statements of fact which would normally lead to a criminal charge. However, no criminal proceedings have been initiated against her. The Swiss migration authorities have finally considered that no sufficient causal link between the problems and persecution suffered by the complainant in 1998 and her alleged reasons for fleeing the country in 2008 had been established. The persecution that the complainant was able to substantiate before the Swiss authorities in fact dates back to more than 10 years before her departure. Therefore, the Federal Administrative Tribunal concluded that the problems the complainant had encountered in the 1990s were no longer relevant to her asylum claim. The Federal Office for Migration pointed out, inter alia, that the human rights situation in Turkey has improved considerably in the past years, especially in view of the accession negotiations with the European Union. For these reasons, the Federal Office and the Tribunal have not considered it likely that the complainant would currently be subject to persecution in Istanbul. 4.11 The State party recalls that there are no criminal proceedings pending against the complainant. Moreover, she has not indicated that members of her immediate family – including her parents living in Istanbul – are being persecuted. It is only before the Committee that she claims that the police have searched for her at her parents’ home since her escape in 2008. The State party observes that the complainant does not claim to have been politically active in Switzerland or to have cooperated with members of the PKK, either in Turkey or in Switzerland. Finally, the State party cannot exclude that the complainant would be questioned by the Turkish authorities upon return to Istanbul. However, even if this were the case, there is no indication that she would be subject to illtreatment or torture. 4.12 The State party recalls that the principle of non-refoulement within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention is applicable only in cases where a person risks, in a case of expulsion or extradition, being subjected to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. 9