CAT/C/49/D/389/2009 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 5.1 On 16 March 2010, the complainant challenged the State party’s argument that he was not wanted by the Turkish authorities. In support of his comments, the complainant cites some of the facts listed in his initial submission (see paragraphs 2.5–2.7). 5.2 The complainant adds that his brother, S.A., a statutory refugee in Germany, who has since become a German citizen, provided a written deposition on 27 January 2009 in which he stated that he had gone to Turkey in May 2008 to attend the burial of one of the male members of the family. The police had searched the house and asked about the complainant. When the brother had remained silent, the police had arrested and questioned him. His passport had been temporarily confiscated. The complainant adds that, in support of his asylum application, he had provided a number of documents, including the Gaziantep Criminal Court’s judgement and his remission of sentence, three newspaper articles showing that his brother had been detained in Turkey,4 documents showing that the complainant is active in the People’s Democracy Party in Switzerland, and various photographs of the complainant taken during political demonstrations in Germany and France. The complainant adds that a number of his relatives and close friends from the Pazarcik region had fled Turkey and been granted asylum in Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom. 5.3 All of these documents show that the complainant was politically active in Turkey and, in particular, that he was close to the guerrilla movement because of the area he comes from and his family ties. The complainant refers to all the times that he was arrested because of his family connections and his active participation in the People’s Democracy Party/Democratic People’s Party. The complainant is therefore known to the police, with whom he had personal dealings and by whom he was ill-treated. The complainant recalls that he is still politically active in Switzerland and that, due to his prolonged absence from Turkey, he runs the risk of being targeted by the Turkish authorities, who would be keen to question him about his activities abroad and his links with various Kurdish groups in Europe. 5.4 The complainant considers that the fact that Kurdish political activists and their families are subject to repression is confirmed by reports on the human rights situation in Turkey. First, minorities face systematic repression, and people who defend the rights of minorities are particular targets for persecution and harassment by the courts and others. Persons who publicly assert their Kurdish cultural identity are at risk of harassment and persecution.5 The report issued by the United States Department of State on 25 February 2009, to which the complainant refers at length, also indicates that an overwhelming majority of torture victims are Kurds and that People’s Democracy Party members do not carry their party membership cards on them in case they are arrested. As an active member of this organization and having lived for a number of years in Europe, the complainant is therefore particularly at risk. 4 5 8 These newspaper articles have not been considered by the Federal Office for Migration, as they date back to 1995 and 1999, i.e., prior to the first asylum application. Pursuant to article 66, paragraph 3, of the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure, the Swiss authorities are not obliged to consider such evidence. In the event, the Federal Office for Migration nevertheless stated that those documents were unlikely to influence the results of the analysis previously carried out by those authorities. The arguments put forward by the Federal Office for Migration were confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court in its ruling of 12 June 2009. The complainant cites the report of the United States Department of State on human rights practices in 2008, published on 25 February 2009. GE.13-40787