CAT/C/54/D/540/2013 outside Turkey. He rejects the State party’s argument that it is the level of his involvement with the PKK that should be the determining factor, asserting instead that a presumed affiliation with the PKK is sufficient to place someone at risk of ill treatment. The complainant states that his family background has not been given adequate consideration by the Swiss authorities. He repeats that: his father and an uncle were killed in a clash with the Turkish authorities; another of his uncles suffered the same fate; one of his uncles has been sentenced to life imprisonment; and four of his cousins were killed or are missing. Consequently, and by the mere fact that he belongs to a family of PKK combatants known to the Turkish authorities, the complainant claims that he is already a suspect in the eyes of the Turkish authorities and that his life is therefore at risk. Additional submission by the State party 6.1 On 26 June 2014, the State party contended that none of the above -mentioned comments from the complainant contained new, relevant evidence regarding his return to Turkey. As to the political climate in Turkey, the State party notes that Turkey and the PKK leader, Abdullah Öcalan, started peace negotiations in late 2012 to end the Kurdish conflict, which has not claimed any lives since Februar y 2013. On 21 March 2013, Mr. Öcalan called for a ceasefire, which was largely respected by both sides in 2013 except for some residual PKK attacks near the end of the year. According to the Diyarbakir branch of the Human Rights Association of Turkey, the number of reported cases of torture and ill-treatment fell significantly in 2013. This is an important consideration for establishing the complainant’s risk of being subjected to torture in the event of his return. 6.2 With regard to the complainant’s health, the State party has noted the medical reports submitted and reaffirms its observations on the merits. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communicatio n, the Committee must decide whether 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 matter has not been and is not being examined un der another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint. The Committee considers that the complainant’s allegation under article 3 has been sufficiently substantiated, declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The issue before the Committee is whether returning the complainant to Turkey would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return (refouler) a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.2 In establishing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey, the Committee must take into account all relevant criteria, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in Turkey. The issue that needs to be determined, however, is whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned. 8/10 GE.15-11115