CAT/C/46/D/352/2008 domestic violence) manifested themselves after the refusal to grant him political asylum, in December 2003. 6.20 The State party declares that in light of all these considerations, it aligns itself with the grounds put forward by the F.O.R. and the F.A.T., when concluding that the complainant’s allegations lacked credibility. It also contends that the presentation made by the complainant does not lead to believing that there exist serious grounds that he would be subjected to torture in Turkey. Thus, nothing indicates that there exist serious grounds to consider that the forced removal of the complainants would expose them to a foreseeable, real, and personal risk of torture in Turkey. 6.21 The State party concludes by inviting the Committee to declare the communication inadmissible for both non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and because of the nonapplicability of article 3 of the Convention in the present case, or, subsidiary to reject the communication on the grounds that the complainant has not a standing as a victim, or to find that the forcible return of the complainants to Turkey would not constitute a violation, by Switzerland, of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s observations on the State party’s submissions 7.1 On 26 May 2009, the complainant’s counsel presented his comments to the State party’s observations. On the State party’s argumentation on the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, he contends that the explanation that a second judge would co-examine the case is purely theoretical. According to him, the workload of the Federal Administrative Tribunal is such, that judges requested to provide a second opinion in a particular case cannot sufficiently familiarize themselves with the merits of each case dealt with by another judge. 7.2 The counsel further explains that he is in contact with the petitioners, and receives regular phone calls. The last meeting in person took place when they provided him with additional elements for their last request for a revision of their case. He adds that in the circumstances of the present case, the address of the petitioners cannot be provided to the State party’s authorities. 7.3 On the State party’s conclusion that the arrest warrants “Örnek 29” of 4 August 2000 and 10 January 2005 are false as they contained a stamp from a prosecutor, the counsel explains that the complainants did not bring these documents themselves, but that they were provided to them by their relatives in Turkey. The warrants were not examined by the Turkish lawyer working for the Swiss Embassy, but only analyzed by an official in Switzerland, who concluded that, since the complainant provided originals, and they were stamped by a prosecutor, they were false. But the official did not contend that the forms themselves were false. The counsel adds that the complainant knew that the Swiss authorities had doubts about the authenticity of the first arrest warrant, when he requested his relatives in Turkey to provide him with the copy of the second arrest warrant, and he probably has informed his relatives about the problematic prosecutor’s stamp on a court document. Notwithstanding this, his relatives provided him with similarly stamped arrest warrant. 7.4 The counsel further claims that, on the closing of the complainant’s shop, the Swiss Embassy has relied on the statements of a district Mayor, who, according to counsel was unaware of the circumstances of the complainant’s case. The Mayor had stated that the shop in question was ran by the complainant and his brother for one or two years, and that he had heard around a year earlier that the brothers had closed it and that the complainant had travelled abroad. This only confirms, according to the counsel, that the petitioner has had a shop. In addition, the Mayor has also contended that he was unable to find out for what reasons the complainant had left the country. Therefore, there is no contradiction with what the complainant has explained before the Swiss asylum authorities. 9