CAT/C/59/D/686/2015 Embassy he was interrogated regarding his participation in terrorist attacks, especially the November 2003 attack in Istanbul. 2.22 The complainant indicates that on 7 April 2015 the public prosecutor sent him a document in German and French, neither of which he claims to understand. After the document was translated, however, he came to the conclusion that it was a judicial decision against which he had 10 days to file an appeal. 2.23 On 28 May 2015, the complainant sent additional information to the Committee indicating that he had received a letter dated 27 May 2015 from the judge, by which he was informed that he would be deported to Turkey on 18 June 2015. He claims that his deportation should not take place as his appeal, set for 28 June 2015, before the Federal Criminal Tribunal against the decision of the Cantonal Criminal Court of Lugano of 23 February 2010, remained pending. 2.24 The complainant states that his political asylum was cancelled by the Federal Administrative Tribunal, yet notes that he still has refugee status in Switzerland. 2.25 The complainant indicates that he has not exhausted all available domestic remedies but that he cannot do so because for five years the authorities of the State party have not replied to any of his complaints. The complainant further submits that his allegations are not being examined by any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims a violation of his rights guaranteed by articles 1-9, 11-14 and 16 of the Convention, without specifying how his rights protected under these articles have been violated. 3.2 The complainant alleges in general terms that he has been submitted to psychological and physical torture by the Swiss authorities, whose aim was allegedly to obtain information and confessions about the terrorist acts he is suspected of having committed. He further states that those acts of torture have been inflicted by Swiss agents since his detention started on 24 June 2009. He also claims that he was locked up in isolation cells and in a “blue cell” during his stays at La Farera and La Stampa, and that the State party violated his “health rights” during his preventive detention at La Farera, since he was not visited by a doctor. 3.3 The complainant asserts that despite the claims he submitted the authorities of the State party have not taken any measures to stop the use of torture against him. He further claims that he was not assisted by a lawyer during the irregular interrogations he went through. He asserts that his lawyer submitted an appeal against his will to the High Court of Cassation, based on statements he had made under torture. 3.4 The complainant submits that, despite his status as a political refugee, he was taken to the Embassy of Turkey, where he was unlawfully interrogated. He claims that if he is returned to Turkey he will face a real risk of death or torture, based on his political problems and on the threats he received when he was imprisoned there. Therefore, he alleges that the State party would violate article 3 of the Convention in the event of his deportation to Turkey. 3.5 The complainant submits that Switzerland is violating his rights by not including torture as a criminal offence. 3.6 He further claims that, despite the reports he sent to the authorities of the State party and despite the injuries he showed to the prison staff and to prosecutors on various occasions, no action has been taken and his allegations have not been investigated. He also 6