returned to that country; specific grounds must exist indicating that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.l The individual must face a real, foreseeable and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he is to be returned.m In light of the State party’s own country reports, the general situation in Turkey is not such as to believe that persons from Turkey, including Kurds, are in general danger of being subjected to torture. 4.7 The State party contends that the political activities in which the author claims to have been involved in Turkey do not suggest that he would be the object of the Turkish authorities’ particular attention. These activities were marginal in nature, such as collecting money. The author had not claimed to know other members of the ERNK, or that he had any special function within the group. His involvement with HADEP consisted only of attending meetings. He had not demonstrated that, through these activities, he had come to the special notice of the Turkish authorities. Thus, the authorities, having learned of his membership of HADEP in March 1995, released him unconditionally in April 1995.n 4.8The State party notes that the complainant had made conflicting statements about the circumstances of his arrest on 10 May 1997. First, the State party’s country reports indicated that all local branches of the IHD, to one of which the complainant had allegedly been travelling when arrested, had been closed. The complainant was unable to provide details of the whereabouts of the IHD office. Secondly, he gave conflicting accounts of the timing of the various events on the night of 10 May 1997 - he claimed he was held until midnight, and, after a two hour car journey, was questioned for a further two hours. This was inconsistent with his claim that he was later dropped off in his home town at 2.30 a.m. The State party further considers it implausible, as appears to transpire from the author’s account, that a person identified by the authorities as a potential informer would not immediately be asked for names of PPK and HADEP members. It concludes from the fact that the authorities did not specifically instruct him about his tasks as an informer and left him alone in the days following 10 May 1997, that they did not regard his as an important opposition figure. In his second interview with the IND, the complainant stated that he was only a passive member of HEDAP, and did not know any active members of ERNK. The State party thus does not consider that the author is regarded by the Turkish authorities as a significant Kurdish opposition figure. The State party adds that the police request to the complainant’s father for information about the complainant’s whereabouts did not suggest anything untoward, and that the information from the father about the authorities’ interest in his son’s whereabouts is unreliable in any event, because the father cannot be considered an objective source of information in relation to his son’s complaint. 4.9 In relation to the complainant’s political activities outside Turkey, the State party notes that no evidence was presented to substantiate these, and in any event, the activities cited are not significant. It rejects as unfounded the assertion that there is a real risk of these activities being known to the Turkish authorities. As to the complainant’s involvement in the occupation of the Greek ambassador’s residence in The Hague, the criminal proceedings against the complaint were dropped for lack of evidence. Even if the complainant’s involvement in this incident was known to the Turkish authorities, it was not sufficiently dissident in nature to cause them to target him. 4.10 The State party notes that the mistreatmento allegedly suffered by the complainant while under arrest in March 1995 is not of overriding relevance to the question at hand. The fact that a complainant has previously been subjected to torture is only one of the considerations identified by the Committee’s general comment as relevant to the consideration of a claim under article 3. The State party contends that the past mistreatment of the complainant, following a police raid that was not aimed at him personally, does not suggest that the author runs a personal risk of torture if returned to that country. Further, the torture allegedly suffered by the complainant in 1995 cannot be described as “recent”. Finally, following his release in April 1995, he experienced no difficulties with the authorities until 1997. In light of the above, the State party considers that there is no question of a violation of article 3 and that the complaint is unfounded. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments on the State party’s observations, dated 5 January 2003, the complainant challenges the State party’s doubts about his credibility. He affirms that not all local branches of the IHD had been closed at the time of his arrest in May 1997, and that such branches were both closed and opened regularly at that time. As to the discrepancies in the timing of the events of 10 May 1997, he states that the times given to the Dutch authorities were estimates only, and that he was very frightened at the time of the incident, which impaired his perception. He further states that he cannot be asked to account for the reasons why the Turkish authorities did not demand names from him prior to releasing him. Finally, he notes that the authenticity of the police “summons” to his father for information about his whereabouts had not been contested by the State party. 5.2 The complainant contends that Turkey is a State with a consistent pattern of human rights abuses, that he was tortured in the past by Turkish police,p that he was engaged in political and other activities inside and outside Turkey which make him particularly vulnerable to a risk of torture upon his return, and that the accounts of his experiences are consistent. The Committee should therefore conclude that the return of the complainant to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and that no obstacle to admissibility arises in this regard. The Committee notes that the State party does not object to the admissibility of the complaint. As the Committee sees no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. 6.2 The Committee must determine whether the forced return of the complainant to Turkey would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In reaching its conclusion, the Committee