CAT/C/32/D/135/1999 Page 10 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,16 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 must take into account 16 Note: he states here that he was tortured in both 1995 and 1997, although the initial complaint refers only to 1995. Presumably, the torture referred to from 1997 relates to the authorities allegedly threatening to kill him if he did not agree to act as an informer.