CAT/C/45/D/349/2008 3.4. On admissibility, the State party acknowledges that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies and is not aware of the matter having been or being subject to any other international investigation or settlement. It maintains that the complainant’s assertion that she is at risk of being treated in a manner which would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. The State party therefore submits that the communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22, paragraph 2 of the Convention and rule 107 (b) of the Committee’s Rules of procedure. 3.5. The State Party disputes the claims on the merits. It reiterates the reforms in Turkey in the area of human rights, including adoption of a policy of zero tolerance on torture and significant legislative reforms, which provide for avenues of complaint for victims of torture. It contends that great weight must be given to the opinion of its authorities, as the latter are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by the asylum seeker and estimate the credibility of her claim. The complainant’s involvement with the PKK was at a low level and her work was limited to typing and editing. Thus, the State party denies that she would be of as much interest to the Turkish authorities as she claims. The complainant had stated that she had never been deprived of her liberty, imprisoned or arrested. In its original decision, the Migration Board had commented that the complainant could not establish by documentary evidence that she was of interest to the Turkish authorities and in particular that she had not presented an extract from the national registration authority demonstrating that she was wanted by the authorities. However, in its submission to the Committee, the State party notes that, according to their information, since 2004 it is illegal to note in the Turkish national population register that a person is so wanted. For this reason, the State Party takes no issue with her failure to provide such documentary evidence. 3.6. The State party is aware that, as the PKK is classified as a terrorist organization, under the Turkish Anti-Terrorist Law, any involvement with it is criminalized and punishable by a 50% higher sentence than would otherwise be the case. The State party also maintains that the risk of being detained does not in itself constitute a substantial ground to believe that the complainant risks being exposed to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, the State party quotes numerous reports on the issue of torture in Turkey,1 maintains that the human rights situation in the country has improved, despite the certain increase in the torture cases reported by NGOs in 2007 and concludes that the information on the vulnerability of the PKK members in prison was somewhat contradictory. 3.7. The State party also maintains that the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment by a non-state actor or by private individuals without the consent or acquiescence of the government of the receiving country falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention, and therefore this alleged risk was of no relevance to the present communication. The State Party also notes that the complainant had spent 10 months in the country after leaving the PKK without any consequences and denies that she would be of as much interest to the PKK as she claims. The State party points to contradictions in the statements of the 1 The Report on Human Rights 2007, issued by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Turkey 2007, the British Home Office Country of Origin Information report on Turkey, dated 29 August 2008, the British Home Office Operational Guidance Note on Turkey, dated 2 October 2008, the Amnesty International Annual Report 2008, the Human Rights Watch World Report 2008, the EC 2008 Turkey Progress Report, the Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, dated 6 September 2006. 5