claims for purposes of a new asylum application after the expulsion order of 7 December 2001 had become final and binding. 8.6The State party submits that, even assuming that the complainant had been introduced as a “guerrilla candidate” at the festival in 1994, his subsequent failure to continue the training, let alone to fight in south-east Turkey, prevented him from occupying a prominent position within PKK. 8.7While not excluding the possibility that the complainant’s conviction of “joint coercion in road traffic” was communicated to the Turkish authorities under the international exchange of judicial records, the State party submits that the place of the offence could only be deduced indirectly from the information concerning the competent court. Even if his participation in the highway blockade could be revealed on the basis of this information, such low-profile activity was unlikely to trigger any action on the part of the Turkish authorities. 8.8As to the burden of proof in national proceedings, the State party argues that the German courts’ obligation to investigate the facts of a case only relates to verifiable facts. The Federal Agency and courts complied with this obligation by pointing out inconsistencies in the complainant’s description of events and by providing him with opportunities to clarify these inconsistencies in two hearings before the Federal Agency and one before the Administrative Court of Wiesbaden. Comments by the complainant 9.1On 27 March and 10 May 2003, the complainant commented on the State party’s merits submission, arguing that the issue before the Committee is not whether his allegations during the first set of asylum proceedings were credible, but whether knowledge by the Turkish authorities of his participation in the PKK training course would subject him to a personal and foreseeable risk of torture upon return to Turkey. 9.2The complainant justifies inconsistencies between his initial and later submissions to the German authorities with the preliminary character, under the Asylum Procedure Law of 1982 (replaced in 1992), of his first statement before the immigration police. This, according to the police translator, had to be confined to one handwritten page, outlining the reasons for his asylum application. In his agent’s letter of 7 February 1991, as well as his interview of 5 May 1991, the complainant explained in detail that, after his military service, he became a PKK sympathizer and was arrested together with other PKK activists during a demonstration. The letter also states that the police tortured him and the others during arrest to extract information on other PKK sympathizers. 9.3The complainant recalls that complete accuracy can seldom be expected from victims of torture; his statements in the initial set of asylum proceedings should not be used to undermine his credibility with regard to his later claims. 9.4With regard to the second set of asylum proceedings, the complainant submits that, in its decision of 18 June 2002, the Frankfurt Administrative Court itself recognized his dilemma, as he could not reveal his PKK membership without facing criminal charges in Germany. His expectation to be recognized as a refugee on the basis of his participation in the highway blockade rather than his PKK membership was therefore plausible and in conformity with the predominant jurisprudence at the time of his hearing before the Wiesbaden Administrative Court, under which refugee status was generally granted to Kurdish claimants who participated in PKK related highway blockades. 9.5Regarding his failure to continue PKK training after completing the course in the Netherlands, the complainant refers to a letter dated 16 February 2003 from the International Association for Human Rights of the Kurds (IMK), which confirms that the PKK had conducted training activities in the Netherlands from 1989 on, and that participants of training courses were often ordered to wait at their domicile for further instructions, or even exempted from the duty to undergo military training in Turkey. 9.6While conceding that the Committee normally requires evidence of PKK membership, the complainant argues that the standard of proof must be applied reasonably, taking into consideration exceptional circumstances. He reiterates that the risk of torture that must be established by a complainant must not be one of high probability but rank somewhere between possibility and certainty. He claims that the written statement and a supplementary affidavit of 4 April 2003 by F.S., describing the complainant’s introduction as a guerrilla candidate at the Halim-Dener-Festival, corroborate his allegations. He concludes that his statements are sufficiently reliable to shift the burden of proof to the State party. 9.7The complainant cites a number of German court decisions which are said to acknowledge the risk that PKK suspects run of being subjected to torture after deportation to Turkey. This risk was not mitigated by the fact that he failed to take part in the PKK’s armed combat. Rather, the Turkish police would try, including through torture, to extract information from him concerning other participants of the training course, PKK officials in Germany and other European countries. 9.8The complainant reiterates that the Turkish authorities know of his participation in PKK training, as he was a member of a relatively small group of guerrilla candidates. He recalls that the Committee has repeatedly held that membership in an oppositional movement can draw the attention of the country of origin to a complainant, placing him at a personal risk of torture. 9.9By reference to reports of, inter alia, the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, the complainant submits that, despite the efforts of the new Turkish Government to join the European Union, torture is still widespread and systematic in Turkey, in particular with regard to suspected PKK members. State party’s additional submission and complainant’s comments 10.1On 29 October 2003, the State party contests the complainant’s credibility and that he faces a risk of torture in Turkey. It submits that the complainant did not describe the severity of the alleged torture to the Federal Agency for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees on 2 May 1991, but only eight and a half years later during the appeal proceedings. This raises fundamental doubts about his credibility, which is further undermined by his inability to explain the extent and prominence of his political activities for the PKK in